ML20206E523
| ML20206E523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606230406 | |
| Download: ML20206E523 (32) | |
Text
_. ._ _____ _ __ _ _ _ - - .
YAY 2 s 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13, 1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1, 1984, (1) all offices under EDO purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule _
makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make recomendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings.
In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval.
Proposed rule,10 CFR Part 40, Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues." (Sponsored by NMSS - memorandum, Minogue to EDO dated May 20,1985.)
I approve continuation of this rulemaking. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG-0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking.
SignelDWilliam J.Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director w for Operations a
cc: V. Stello J. Roe H. R. Denton J. Taylor R. B. Minogue P. G. Norry Distribution: __
WJDircks JH$nien, ks_
VStello WSchwink JPhilips JHenry ED0 rf Central File DEDROGR cf g62g406850529 PDR fl / W OFC :ROGR/S :RO /D :] E ED : : :
A___::
_ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . :n _______: ._ __ ..___:..__________:____________:...________ '
NAME :BGabriel :W ek :T$ ello :WD rcks : : :
_...___:...f _______: ...._______:_ . ________:-__________
_____:.___________:__.g_85 _____ .:__.g/85
- 5/ W :5/Jb/_85 : : :
DATE :5/23/85 :5/%V _
a 0-
((1y & %La
""%, UNITED STATES g[ k t
& NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e g
f, n j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
%3Q ***** qV4 NAY E 01985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED OY NMSS Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwater Protection and Other Issues,"
sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director, NMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
The basis of our recommendations is as follows:
e o The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) mandates conformance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comperable to the EPA requirements.
o EPA's final standard in 40 CFR Part 192 mandates that tailings management and disposal not degrade groundwater. NRC's current regulations are based on not degrading groundwater beyond its use category. This difference and other provisions of the EPA standard l require major modifications of f;RC's current regulations.
l o The three alternative approaches towards proposed rulemaking, currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable.
o Proceeding with the propcsed rulemaking is in conformance with NRC - 1 Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings regulations which indicates that the remaining changes for implementing EPA's standards shall be completed by January 1988.
o At this time, RES is not aware of any reasonable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
l l
I
. o~
2 MAY 2 01385 The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OED0 (attention:
DEDR0GR) and tc the Director, NMSS.
i YY 0 Waf Robert B. Minogue, Director 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research f
.I 1
C 1
i 1
i
?
i s
k
{
t b
1 4 .
4 l
i l
f i
I-_._..,..._.._._.-,-.,-_. - - - = . _ , . _ _ . - _ , , _, -,.._,..- .-.. --. -_ _... . . - _ . . . . - - . . . _ . . . . .. _. , _ , - . _ , . , - _ - . _ _ _,m..
1 i
. # 1
'3 ROUTING AND TRANSW TAL SUP y -
NAY 211985 pk gu m onc.symeon. ,oun n meer, inRi.is oate Ming, Agency] Post)
- 1. 0 6DD ( W s 'YGDRQG(b 2- (/ /' !
- 3. ,
\
4.
S.
KAction File Note and Retum Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correctson Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Infurmation See Me Comment Investigate Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS '
kM E5 uQ.a.~Ast -%
J L atasS /
"G.a&.%~ %11. R&W 4 6% 7"*J T& %W~ fe<rc4L ,
(Pwt 40).
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbof, Agency / Post) Room No.-Bldg.
)W4,RAMRo y RES P,,on. No.
YY3 -2 gly
- 3-3'8 OPTg g 41 (Rev. 7-76) ,
- (h 19ar a - seaan urn rensa tea ck 101-11.20s .
1 l
1
F MAY 2 01985
. MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEftAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS
- Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwater Protection and Other Issues "
sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recomendation of the Director, HMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
?
The basis of our recomendations is as follows:
o The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) mandates confomance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable to the EPA requirements.
o EPA's final standard in 40 CFR Part 192 mandates that tailings managment and disposal not degrade groundwater. NRC's current regulations are based on not degrading groundwater beyond its use category. This difference and other provisions of the EPA standard require major modifications of NRC's current regulaticns.
o The three alternative approaches towards proposed rulemaking, currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable, o Proceeding with the proposed rulemaking is in confomance with t:RC Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings re9ulations which indicates that the remaining changes for implementing EPA's standards i shall be ccepleted by January 1988.
o At this tima, RES is not aware of any reasonable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
ome;>
sum =Aass >
unc roau na no-so) Nacu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
f 2-The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OED0 (attention:
DEDROGR) and to the Director, NMSS.
Orisimi pianosby:
nomstr B. wruner Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DISTRIBUTION Subj. FCostanzi Circ. KGoller Chron. Dross WMB/rf RMinogue JStewart WOTT A
0F PES /WMB ES/WMB :DRPB :R / I O : ,
~
) .t. --------- - % .------------
N tewart : azi : KGo'ller : Dross t (Minogue : i spie : ;
bT hbb 5 bb 3 bb bb Y bb bb .
f RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE
(
_ . . . . ..o . . _ _ . . . __. ... . ..
. . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . .. - - -- O J RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: G. A. Arlotto, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uranium flill Tailings Regulatior.s: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues (Part40)
REQUEST RIRB
/AGREEWITHDRAFTRES INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.
IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE.
MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.
INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS 3 AS INDICATED BELOW. '
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
c l
i l
l
) I f '
l
/
(MEMBER, RIRB f
DATE
- f. . . . . . . . : ___. - - -
..l _ m. . -. _ -- -
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET 10: RIRB FROM: F. P. Gillespie, Chairman, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uranit: Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues (Part 40)
REE WITH DRATT RES REQUEST RIRB
[/ INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.
IN DRAFT INDEPENDEl4T REVIEW PACKAGE.
MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.
INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.
C M ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
T h n h oink
[q kph h kih Sb
% c ',4 th SUNM ih gkout l a lw
.yn pudn CR lh a o g ko Avts (< b dS36 eohbyY k
!'S [^ ci Y S> 3 ()au r 5""
sos a k % v n A <t m i %
0
)
YkE%ER, /f R DATE
r . ... .... ... -- .- -- . o. . . .. .,
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uranium Hill Tailings Regulations: Confonning NRC Requirements to EPA Standards (Part 40)
AGREE WITH DRATT RES REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.
IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE.
MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.
INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Straight approval .
//Hf M/~d W. M. MORRIS 0N MEMBER, RIRB
.. n/s/rr DATE -
l R6b IND&fiENDENT R2VifV) of NMSS RUL6MRkujE,,
mounNG AND TRANSMff7AL SUP "'APR 1 BB5 sm Mene. nsee,neer..eun==nnw. amen one assacr/rmo g W. M. Morrison. Member. RIRE _
s g G. A. Arlotto, tiember. RIRB -
4 7. P. Gillespie. Chairman, RIRB E
ltheuen I FBo Oeste and Renwn beorevet per Cheerenes
- FW Oenowneuen he - _ - - - Per conmemen propees meser ;
barameno per veur ses== nen see ano tr -
maesesses sinnet !
t -_ sessur anannten u yyJ.g,f Pamex_ ,.s. sc.- -A soG.
PM:_ M opku 7+9_-n CP A Ya)
We are at step III.C.2. "RIRS deliberations.' of .the .
RES independent review procedu'res for the attached .
specific ongoing rulemaking sponsored by
}
Please evaluate the . attached dra'ft independent review package and provide RAllRB with your voting sheet indicating your. position on the rulemaking.
Your response by c.c.b. R 12 M will assist in RES' making independent recomendations to the EDO in a timely manner.
l l
- l. Do stor ese ude sean en a sacosto et opressein. eenaeneness. % !
esserensen ens ohnner essens !
MIDh8 9888"*. *'s. syneet. Asensy/Poso Insom W . l RA*1RB staff pienepen.
443-7885 s u -see g en pie,. us)
,
- SPO: 1983 0 383 129 (232) 000
. _ - - . , _ - - . -. - . _ , - _ _ , . , , , - - . - _ , - - , . . . _ _ . _ . - . _ . ,, . , - , , __y. __.,.-p-., . . . - -,ww ,ww,.
r I
MEMORANDUM RES TO ED0 WITH DIVISION DIRECTOR CONCURRENCE
DISTRIBUTION Subj. FCostanzi Circ. KGoller ,
Chron. Dross WMB r/f RMinogue JStewart W0tt L MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Erecutive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwateri w Protection and Other Issues,"
sponsoredbyNMSS,RESagreeswiththerecom@mendationcftheDirector,NMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
The basis for our recommendations is as follows:
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) mandates conformance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs NRC to assure that mi'11 tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable to the EPA requirements.
The three alternative approaches towards proposed rulemaking, currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable.
RES staff does not recommend any specific alternative at this time but reserves the right to comment further when the proposed rule is presented.
Proceeding with the proposed rulemaking is in conformance with NRC Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings regulations which indicates that the remaining changes for implementing EPA's standards shall be completed by January 1988.
At this time, RES is not aware of any reas.onable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
Robert B. Minogue, Director
'* " ** 9" * # ****
NOTE *See previous concurrence 0FC: DRPES/WMB :DRPES/WMB :DRPES/D :RES/DD :RES/D :RIRB :
NAME:JStewart :FCostanzi :KGoller : Dross :RMinogue :FGillespie :
DATE:3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :
MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULEPAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of the rulemakingj" Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwater Water Protection and Other Issues,"
sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director, NMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
The basis for our recommendations is as follows:
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) '
mandates conformance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner thp is comparable to the EPA requirements. -_ _ f/d The three alternative approaches towards proposed rulemaking, currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable.
RES staff does not recomend any specific alternative at this time but reserves the right to coment further when the proposed rule is presented.
Proceeding with the proposed rulemaking is in conformance with NRC Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings regulations which indicates that the remaining chqnges for implementing EPA's standards shall be completed by Januaryp988.
At this time, RES is not aware of any reasonable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations ,
consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill ,
Tailings Radiation Control Act. l Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DISTRIBUTION Subj. Circ. Chron. WMB/rf JStewart WOTT FCostanzi KGoller Dross RMinogue OFC: DRPES/I[M:p PES /WMB : B : RES/DD : RES/D : RIRB :
g___a __ _
NAME:JStewa : o i :K 011 r : Dross : RMinogue : FGillespie:
___________5 ________ ________________________________________________________ .________
DATE:3/J5/85 :3/;f /85 :3/g/85 : : : -
i
g# *N, UNITED STATES
., e
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
[
c'
.j e
W ASHINGT9N, D. C. 20555 p6
....+
MAR u 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: K. R. Soller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES FROM: Frank P. Gillespie, Chairman RES Independent Review Board
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC R'Ji.EMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RULEMAKING Enclosed is a rulemaking RES independent review. (review package Enclosure 1) received from a sponsoring office for In accordance with procedures approved by the ED0 on May 30,1984, the rule-making review package is assigned to your Division for action. (Enclosure 2).
The ED0-approved procedures allow a total of 20 working days for completing the RES independent review. To assist RES in completing its independent review in a timely manner, please submit the draft independent review package for this specific rulemaking to RAMRB by 7 working days from the date of this memorandum.
b '
k Frank P. Gil es ie, Chairman RES Independent Review Board
Enclosures:
- 1. " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations:
Groundwater Protection and Other Issues" (10 CFR 40)
- 2. Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review of Rulemakings
O OFFICE REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM NMSS l
.. ..s
- ** %*'o
- UNITED STATES
- [ 9, , e g ,% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- , k;p a ,o j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 5 M 14 1925 .
MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING - EDO QUARTERLY REVIEW In response to your memorandum of February 13, 1984, and in accordance witn instructions provided in subsequent inemoranda from the Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research (NRR), the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 53feguards (NMSS) has reviewed the ongoing or proposed rulemaking activities listed in Attachment 1 to this memorandum. On the basis of our review, we recommend approval of continued activity cn tnese rules, with the exception of "Certifi-cation of Industrial Radiographers" and " Shallow Land Disposal of Racioactive Waste". Staff efforts on these are now directed toward terminating the two rulemaking activities. -
Also, as directed by your memorandum and the subsequent instructions from RES,
, we have prepared Review Packages fcr all of the listed rulemaking activities.
These are included as attachments to this memorandum, with copies forwarded to RES and the other reviewi7ig office:.
\, .
7- ,
J hn G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Attachments:
At statec bec: RES '
RM DRR
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
" Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues"
Contact:
Kitty Dragonette i 427-4300 I
i i
i I
D 4
4
e _ _;
.... m g I
NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY t
e 4
- . . r. . ..
. 1
. . g.. . .. ws
~
~.$
.. .11L Y$O .:5di."
. s; ~^ ,* % L;; 2 g . .. f ..
m -m mm;
- g. ,qs .c ..-..
-%x =4m & ~' ~% W8L -
fM M.itTLEr~flMW%5ydQ& &Q's.h:::3.%:; -
i d l
.. Uranium Mir.I
.50tiseV,?f'ssdes&MNgsr Regulationsr.GroundLWater Protect orr an j
- d 2 ? G ';'. M tM.54Ga@
T T'. ' ..
~ ~
f 4 C 5 % ? if^7&MD; % ;L e y # ~ 6 . G 3 d ,,. . ,. ~ -
"N - j AW.M*CM9.sh CER CITATIOWr W .J ??
$Q& M*W y%CYh Mie 4shi?.y:v.;e W" ' . c.
O
-IG Celt- 4(FF'&5.#9433'%YhiM$# *
.~,v m w fh 5'Q % i$ w.a d m s &?;t.Y ;.-
ABSTRACT'r Z.'+% Nf1 5.D.d'
~' - - 3C The: advance. . notice.of; proposed rulemaking seeks comment on' NRC's
. tentative approach. to making. further amendments to its uranium .f
- miII taiIings, t.eguIatforts .The. corttemplated rulemaking proceeding , d is i.ntended to incorporate groundwater provisions and other ,
requirements establi.shed by the Environmental Protection Agency 3 for similar harardous wastesi, i.nto NRC regulati.ons.. Thi.s. action isoy necessary toc make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards ,8 as required by the Urani.um Mill Tailings Radiatierr Control Acb
, 'No <ernati.ver 1r? this action accd te h conMd: ed.' Comments on the ANPRM wi.ll. help define- the trature and . scope of the action.
EPA. has esti.ma.ted that compIf arree with their groundwater standards and. wi.th the; stability, radon release,. and other requirements < recently promulgated wi.11 cost the industry f rom )
i about S.TIO cri.Ilion- to S54 0 million for aLL tai.li.ngs generated by the year 2000r. The range depends arr the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tai. lings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees in the interim. NRC resources and schedules are sti.ll bei.ng developed. .
TIMETABLE':
xuem Sm. .m.,i a n/W LEGAL AUTHORITTr 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 41 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALI. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCT CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300
- 5 e
, see
.h 91
TITLE:
Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT: .
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on Nr.C's tentative approach to making further amendments to its uranium I mill tailings regulations. The contemplated rulemaking proceeding l is intended to incorporate groundwater provisions and other l requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency for similar hazardous wastes into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and consequently no alternatives to this action need to be l
considered. Comments on the ANPRM will help define the nature and scope of the action. EPA has estimated that compliance with their groundwater standards and with the stability, radon release, and other requirements recently promulgated will cost the industry from about S310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees in the interim. NRC resources and schedules are still being developed.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 48425 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 11/26/84 49 FR 48425 ANPRM Comment Period End 01/25/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 1 i
Washington, D.C. 20555 i 301 427-4300 t
e vet . 3, n o. 9 Filr. 1986'
_a t
9 e
RULEMAKING AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED
\
B 6
9 9 $
l L
Federal Regleter / Vol. 49. No. 22s / M nday. November 28. 1984 / Proposed Rulds . 48423 e .
10 CFR Part 40 uranium nam'Tamnes Regutetiene; Ground Water Protocuon and Other leaues aossicv: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
acnosc Advanced notics of proposed rulemaking.
sueensasm The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)la considering funber amendmenta to its uranium mill tailings regulations. The future rulemaking proceeding for which this notice is issued la pnmanly intended to incorporate ground water protection provisions and other requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency for similar hasardous wastes into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC requirements similar to EPA standards as required by provisions of the L*ramum Mill Tailinga Radiation Control Act.
ca7E: The comment penod expires lanuary 25. tif85. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of consideration n'sy not be given except es to cornments received on or before this date.
-memas: Mail commenis to
- Secretary. US Nucleat Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20535.
Attention: Docketing and Service
' Branch, or deliver comments to Room 1121,1717 H Stree: NW. Washington.
DC between 4:15 a.st. and 5.110 p.m.
i weekdays.
Post MAsmega gaspesistATIces 80strACTt Robe t Fonner. Omce of Executive 14 sal Director. telephone (301) 482-4882, or Kitty S. Dregonette. Division of Weste Management. US Nuclear Regulatory
I'. esas Fedssel Register / Vcl. m. Ns. 228 / M:nd:y. N:v:mber 28.1964/ Propos:d Rules Commission. Washington DC3555. would then incorporate within NRC alternahve proposals as restine tslephone (301) 42F-4311D. regulations elements of DA's SWDA licensing actions.
eupstassentrasty esponsannost The requirements already. imposed by EPA.
Nuclear Regulatory Consuasion has and establish any further requsremente L Bachyeund en the Ground Water y,,,,
today proposed med:Scations to its necessary for the NRC to have SWDA.
saisang udl taihaps regulations in comparable standards as caued for by The SWDA requirements imposed by Appendix A to 10 Cm part 40 for the Section to of the Atomic Energy Act of the EPA in its nale published October 7
- purpose of conformmg them to generally 1954. as amended. 19s3 (4e FR 48828) were described by
- cpphcable standards promulgated by The Commission considered further the EPA in that Notice as follows
p the Environmental Protection Agency revisions to Appendix A to conform it to " Consistent with the standards EPA '
(EPA) on September'30.1ss3 (see 44 FR the physical stabihty aspects of the EPA issued under the SWDA for hazardous 4552e October 7.1983).This advance standard. but did not propose them.The wastes (47 FR 32274-323aa. july 36.1982) nouce of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) EPA standard requtres that the final the standard for taihngs piles has two
, announces that the Commission is cover design provide reasonable parts:(1) A 'pnaary' standard that ;
! considenns proposms further assursace of effective control"for one requires use of a Imer designed to i
! modificabons to us regulations in to thousand years. to the extent reasonably prevent migration of hazardous ,
j CFR Part 40. to aansfy certam provisions achievable. and in any case. for at least substances out of the impoundment. and !
ef the Uranium MillTrailings Radiauon 200 years? The EPA's numencal (2) a ' secondary' ground water Control Act of 1978 (UMiltCA). and longevity standard takes a different Protection standard requinns, in effect.
requests public comments on pertment approach to stability than do the NRC -that any hazardous consutuents that issues and quesnons. requirements. In Appendtx A. the NRC leak from the waste not be allowed to
, On October 7.1983. the EPA pubhshed estabhabed numerous presenpuve degrade ground water.The pnmary generally appheable standards for the requirements fur specilie design features standard applies to new pornons of new management of uranium and thonum in order to assure stabihty without or existmg evaste depositones. The
, byproduct matenal.The standards were acuve memtenance for an indefinite secondary standard apphes to new and i
d:veloped by the IPA in a manner to penod of tme following closure. The existmg pertions. the point of
, seusfy the prov sions of section 275 of EPA rule sets a performance standard compliance being at the edge of the i the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, for a limited tame pened. In addauon. the waste impoundment.The specific that for nonradiological hazards, the preamble to the EPA standard and the hazardous substances and standards "* *
- shall provide for the supportmg environmental evalusuon concentrations (La. background levels) :
protection of human health and the indicate that the EPA consc2ously that del'me noncomphance with the I l cnvironment consistent with the considered the acceptability of relying secondary standard at each site will be
! standards required under Subtitle C of on active maintenance to provide estabbshed for urentum mill tailings by j the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as stabihty followmg cloeure. and did not NRC and Agreement States.The SWDA i emended. which are applicable to such prohibit it. Rather, the EPA standard rules bowever, permit alternate !
l hisards." To achieve thas goal the EPA requires that. for nonradiological concentranon limits to be established 1 i included within its requirements hazards the need for acuve mamtenance when they will not pose "* * *a j published October 7.1ss3. selected only be ===aad NRC's Appendix A substantial present or potential hasard j provisions from its regulations issued flatly prohibits any plarmed rebance on to human health or b environment" as 4 under the Solid Weste Disposa! Act active maintenance. long as the alternate concentrouon linut (SWDA) by cross aferencm3 h SWDA De Commission requests comments is not exceeded. The rule also allow j provisions.These specific provisi:na are on whether it should delete er modify (sic)' hazardous constituents
- to be 4 n:w in effect and the NRC is addiuonal provtssons of Append:.x A exempted from coverere by the pennit
- considenna undertakmg a rulemaking including presenpuve requirements for based on the same entenon. EPA
- which would clanfy its regulations by specific design features which may not determines the alternate concentration j including within them those SWDA be necessary to meet the EPA standard. standard or exemption under b requirements selected by the EPA for The presenpave regturements tri SWDA. EPA's concurrence would be l appbcation to uteruum and thonum mill required under the proposed standards quesuon melude those for mmimtzmg 1 taihngs. upstream drainage area. sitmg wner, for taahnss."
i The rulemaking under considersnon there is good wmd protecnon relanvely The EPA went on to further describe' would also be intended to satisfy a flat slopes. mandatory vegetative or the pnmary standard. pnmanly requirement placed upon the NRC under rock cover. cobble stze rock. high quality consisting of the haer design l section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of rock cover and rock armortna The requirements. and clanfy the secondary l 1954. as amended. to "* '
- meure that Comnumon also considerec seleung ' standard, by saymt
! the management of any byproduct the prohibiuon on rebance on acuve "
"The pnmary standard. 40 CFR matenal * * ' is carned out in such mamtenance, modifymg Cntenon 3 264.221. can usually be sansfied only by m:nner as conforms to general mandanns below grade disposal as the using liner matenals (such as plastics)
- requirements estabbshed by the pnme option. and delehng the that can retam all wastes. Exemptions Commission. with b coneunence of the requirement for background radium permitting use of other liner materials
! (EPA) Administrator. which are. to the concentrations in cover materials. Relief (such as clay) that may release water or
- mzximum extent practsable. at least from these retamed provisions is small quantities of other substances or.
c:mparable to requirements apphcable available through esse-by-case in some cases. peruutting no kner may l
i ts the possession. transfer and disposal proposals by licensees as noted in be granted only if nueraben of cf similar hazardous materialre6ulated proposed addinons to the introducuno hazardous consutuants inic the ground by the Administrator under the Solid of Appendia A of to CFR 40. The water or surface weeer woeld be Weste Disposa! Act,as amended."The Commission seeks comment on whether prevented mdefinitely * * '." ' -
rulemaking under consideranon. which this is sufficient flexibility in view of the i
is the primary subject of this ANPRM. "Under these standards. a!! new ~
Commission's intent to consider weste storage areas (whether new O
l l
- - . - - - -- - ---------N
g Federal Register / Vtl. 49. No. 228 / M:nday. N2vember 28. 1984 / Propos:d Rulu 44427 waste facilities or expansions of existing and yie following sections of the SWDA 1954. as amended. Consistent with that
! piles) are subject to the pnmary regvistions: authonty and in accordance with standard- the liner requirement. lf new i. Subpart F: section asc. of that Act. the Commission wastes are added to an existing pile. 40 CFR 264.91 Required programs has the discretion to review and however, the pile must comply with the o CFR 264.95 Pomt of comphance approve site specific attematives to secondary standard-the hazardous 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance periud standards promulgated by the constituent concentration standards for 40 CFR 264XT General ground water Commission and by the Administrator of i
health and environmental protection. monitonns requirements the Environmental Protection Agency.In Whether for a new or existmg pile. if tne 40 CFR 264.96 Detection monitonng the exercise of this authenty, section recondary standards are found not to be program sec. does not require the Commission to satisfied and subsequent corrective 40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitonng actions fatl to achieve compliance in a program obtain the concurrence of the I reasonable time, the operator must Administrator in any site specific '
ii. Subpart C:
cease depositing waste on that pi!e." altemative which satisfies Commission 40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and requirements for the level of protection Also in its October 7.1963 Notice. the use of property EPA stated that " EPA's responsibilities for public health, safety. and the tii. Subpart K: environment from radiological and to establish standards under section 206 to CFR 264.226 Monitoring and
- nonradiological hazards at uratuum mill "I
fd o art o inspect on (of impoundment liners). as tailings sites. As an example. the applicable sections of the SWDA regulations: Commission need not seek concurrence L Subpart F: 40 CFR 264.228 Closure and postclosure of the Administrator in case.by-case care. as appi cable." determmations of altemative 40 CFR 264.92 Cround water protection The above quotations from the EPA's concentracon limits and delisting of standard October 7.1963 Notice serve to clanfy hazardous constituents for specific sites.
40 CFR 264 93 Hazardous consu.tuents the substance of EPA's standards, the 40 CFR 264.94 Concentration limits It should be understood that the respective agency responsibilities under proposed cor forming regulations deal (These three sections are modified and the UMTRCA. and the nature and scope with the exercise of the Commission's 40 2 to rre ti e action ns d n undert ing e RC has ' ' '" " '
program g , ct of 19 ly a reviewed the language quoted and. with (This secuan is modified and adopted as the exception of the tunedictional ngarda uranium mW Wmas su' n aad 1 1 192.33) concems discussed in the following have no broader connotauen. !
Li. Subpart C; section. believes it to be factually The Commission believes that 40 CFR 264.111 Closure performance correct and a fair representation of the licensee proposals for attemauves can )
i standard issues addressed. be an important and effective way to 1 (This secuan is adopted as part of * ' '
- D. Commission Authurity and l 192.32(b)(1))
- PonsMty with implementing the new EPA lii. Subpart K: standards. '!he Commission expects that Section Sec.of the Atomic Energy Act it may require several years to have its 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operstm.g requirements for surface states that: A IJcensee may propose conforming regulations fully in place. it impoundments attematives to specific requirements expects to use the flexibility provided adopted and enforced by the by secuan 64-in the intenm to consider o is modified and adopted as Commission under this act. Such and approve alternative proposals from attemauve proposals may take into
,NRC's responsibilit.es under account local or regional conditions. licensees. Secuan 64c. provides NRC UMTRCA are to implement EPA,e including geology, topography. sufficient authonty to independently standard and to " ' ' insure that the hydrology and meteorology. The appmve ahemauvn soIong n the management of any byproduct Commission may treat such attematives Commission can make the required material * *
- is carts. d out in sus h 4 as satisfying Commission requ:rements determmation.
manner as * *
- conforms to general if the Commission determmes that such requirements established by the III. Issues for Public Comments altemauves will achieve a level of Commission. with the concurrence of the ' stabilizauon and contamment of the The NRC requests public comment on Admmistrator, which are. to the sites concemed, and a level of the general question of how best to maximum extent pracucable at least protection for public health. safety. and proceed to fulfillits responsibilities comparable to requirements applicable the envirc:unent f om radiolopcel and under the Atomic Energy Act with to the possession. transfer. and disposal nonradiological hazards associated with respect to establishing SWDA.
of similar hazardous material regulated such sites. which is equivalent to to the comparable requirements for the by the Admitustrator under the SWDA. extent pracucable or more stnngent management of mill tatlmss. to the as amended.* EPA will insure that NRC's than the level which would be achieved maximum extent practicable. In this regulations satisfy these admonitions by standards and requirements adopted through its concurrence role. Relevant context. comments are requested on j and enforced by the Commission for the choices and decisions the NRC must SWDA reFulations are those embedded same purpose and any final standards make concernmg issues and acuens that l
in Subpans A (except Section 264.3!. B. promalgated by the Administrator of the are withm its discretion. Comments on C. D. E. F. C. H. and K. Examples of Environmental Protection Agency in the basic value, validity. lawfulness. or areas which NRC must address in accordance with secnon 275. '
dischargmg these responsibiliues appropriateness of the EPA's SWDA The Commission histoncally has had involve functions under the six uctions regulations, the SWDA. or the UMTRCA the authenty and responsibiltty to listed immediately above which are are not requested.
regulate the activines of persons '
i incorporated mto these EPA standards, licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of '
i I
~
l
. gem Todamal Esslater / #ct. as. Nr. 22s / Monday. November 28. 1984 / Proposed Rules l A. TantativeNACAPProach forCrused 2. lasues and Questions (4) How detailed should NRC's ,
Waterhoesctico , ~ The NRC seeks public input with ngulations be, and what should and '
The NRC has developed a tentative mspect to all aspects of the queston of a d no mq in amas as epproach to place SWDA-comparable how best to fulfill its responsibihtaas g g requimments in its regulations, based on under section 275 and 84 of the Atomic I planning and development efforts Energy Act of 1954. as amended. foe everage and seasonal background Protection of ground water.ne NRC ,g conducted to date.nis approach is tentative. and is made a part of this also seeks public comment with respect M dda d to the following issues and questions (In g g public announcement so efforts spent in providing pubhc comment might be providing pubhc comment commenters M rMke i uested to provid th basis in g qyg ,,,, gg,y better guided. It irivolves the
. development of additions to NRC g r any op oneo or (9) To what extant must the NRC regulations (either a block insert at the , provide supporting environmental (1) Should the SWDA comparable impact analyses considering the nature end of to CFR Part 40 or perhaps by of the requirements under consideration.
requirements to be placed in NRC creation of a new Part 41) which would sotne of which have alnady been contain the entre set of SWDA. regulations be explicitly restated to precisely duphcate EPA's language. or imposed by EPA and are effective? !!
comparable requirements. supporting enviromental evaluations an should substanuve requirements be The additions would be organized in paraphrased? needed for SWDA-comparable rule terms of design. operanng. closure, and (2) Should all of Subpart F be changes except for the nquant nts post dosure requinments and would to included? What should not be included? already imposed by the EPA. at % (
the fullest extent feasible. be a complete (3) What should be included in a NRC contmue to proceed with only a statement of the requirements without listmg of hazardous consutuents for mill smale rulemakins to establish a complete }'
reference to EPA requirements in Title tailmgs to replace the 375. item long hat set of SWDA comparable requirements?
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In in Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 281 (10)Is the flexibility cited in the this way, the requirements could be referenced in 40 CFR 26433? Should proposed addition to the Introduction of stated in a self.contamed. unified constituents not usually present or not Appendix A 10 CR Part 40 suf5cient or marmer in one place. Coverage would present above trace levels be meluded? abould the NRC develop and support indude at least the SWDA requinments What cntena should be apphed to additional modificatons to conform to altsady imposed by FPA (40 CFR decade what consotuents should be the physical stability sepects of the EPA 264.92-94. 264.100. 264.111. and 264.221). included? standard? l and appropnate poruons of the SWDA (4) The NRC must estabbsh SWDA*
requirements mentioned by the EPA Ust of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40 comparable requirements to the expbcatly as " examples of areas which maximum extent practicable. In this Covernment contracts. Hazardous NRC must address"(these include 40 context. what is practicable given matenal-.-transportanon Nuclear CFR 264.95-09. 264.117. 264.22tL and current practice and the current sta'.e of matenals. Penalty. Reportmg and 264.22a). technology? recordkeepmg requirements. Source The rulemakmg bems considered for (5) Should NRC retain the basic matenal. and IJranium.
proposal by the NRC may mdude most sequence embodied m Subpart F where Deted at Wuhmgtoe. DC, thm anh day of of Subpart F (40 CR 264.90-100). due to bcensees who detect ground water November 1964 the close relationship and contammation progress through a For the Nuclear Regulatory Comausa on.
interdependency of the separr'e graduated scale of action. from Samuel l. Chilk.
provtstons, and because all bt. 10 CR detection monitonng. through s,ef,,,fy of g3, com,us,,,3, 254 90. "Appbcabdity." is either imposed compliance momtonng. and on to m, % y %
or menuoned as an example by the EPA. C Cti ac on with sig.25can e m,,,,,,,
De remamder of the EPA s SWDA regulations. including Subpart A (except plans and programs are bemg developed. reviewed. and implemetted? 10 CFR Parta 50 and 55 1264.3). B. C. D. E. F. C. H. and K would be reviewed in developing a proposal to Would it be advisable. pracacable or determme wluch of those requirements appropnate to require for example. that Operator's Ucenses and Contorming ,
would need to be incorporated in NRC all NRC licensees have approved Amenement regulauons to estabhsh NRC compliance moratonng programs that requirements which are to the maximum are automatically activated and acancw Nuclear Regulatory implemented when neede !? Commissica.
extent practicable, at least comparable (el Should the basic SWDA schece acnosc Proposed rule.
to the EPA e SWDA requirements for for the tmung and duration of a similar hazardous matenal.
- compliance" penod. a " closure" pe .od, sussesann The Nuclear Regulatory in developing this proposal the NRC and a " post closun care" penod be Commission is proposing to amend its would distinguish between substantive maintamed? What modifications. regulations to (1) clanfy the regulations requirements and epa's procedural deletions, additions should be made? for the issuance oflicenses to operstors permittmg requirements because it does (7) To what extent. how, and under and senior operators:(2) revise the not beheve the UMTRCA mandate what conditions should leak detectoo requirements and scope of wnttan !
requires the NRC to adopt anf portion of systems under single-liner examinations and operating tests for the procedural permittag aspects of impoundments be allowed to fulfill the operators and senior operators.
EPA's regulabons. The NRCs requirements for a detecuon mortitor.ng includmg a requirement for a simulation estabbshed procedures for licensing. program that otherwise requires a facility: (3) codify procedures for the .
inspecuon. and enforcement would be monitonna well in the uppermost administration of requalification used with respect to implementation. aquifer 7 examinations. and (4) describe the form
? .
r*ei =+-
Proposed Rules-
. u. . u u
. Wednesday. }enuary n teos t .
The secean W so PgDgRAL REGtSTER may be examined at the NRC Public sename nesses a me aume W me Document Room.1717 H Street NW i
enliposed amenos W ness one Washington. D.C.
'**d***'" * ##" **** ****** poa pusmeen seconesafion coastacT:
0m to,,swe,,,,,,
mesroene,, persons Robert Fonner. Office of the Executive
, ,,, enn,, 14 sal Dinctor. on (30114st.4es2. or -
enemme ener a vie aeopmen er me annt Kitty S. Dragonette. Division of Weste
. naes.
' Management on (301) 4s2-4300. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ceaunission.
- Washington. D.C. 20685.
Dated at Washington D.C. tius tith day of January test.,
f For the Nuclear Regulatory r"--
Seemsel).Oilk.
5scrosaryof the Corruniasion.
1 CFR Part 40 (FR Dec. e6-1W Filed 1-tm a:48 aml e re Uranlufn 005 Tasinge Regulation; -
oround wotor Protocuen and Dewr leeuos aemocr. Nuclear Regulstory Commission.
ACTiese Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking: extension of comment penod.
suestaanr. On November 26.1964 (49 FR 46425) the NRC published for public comment an Advanced Notice of l Proposed Rulemaking indicating that the NRC is considering further amendments to its uranium mill tailings regulations to I
incorporate ground water protection
! provisions and other requirements established by EPA for similar hazardous wastes into NRC regulations.
The comment period for this proposed rule was to have expired January 25.
1965. A number of commenters have
- requested an extension of the comment
' s penod. In view of the importance of the proposed rule, and the destre of the Commission to allow all parties to fully express thetr views. the NRC has i
decided to extend the comment period.
The extended comment now exptres on March t. tess.
oarts:The comment penod has been i
extended and now expires March 1.
l . 1965. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of con. sideration cannot be given except as to comments received before this date.
j acosassam Send written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the
, , Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Weshington. D.C. 3065L Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of comments received
- 5 NMSS TASK LEADER EVALUATION '
MM8 9
9 i I s
I
' l NMSS OFFICE FINDING ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING
, Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater l
Protection and Other Issues l' 1. Issue The companion rulemaking for uranium mill tailings does not incorporate ,
,~
the ground-water provisions imposed by EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 192. l Additional modifications to Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 may be '
appropriate to assure that NRC regulations for mill tailings are fully comparable to EPA's requirements for similar ha::ardous wastes.
1
- 2. Need i
, The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) as
! arended contains twc mandates. One is to corform to the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192. Conformance was to be completed within 6 months after final EPA standards were issued (i.e., by April 1, 1984). The companion
! rulemaking is based solely on this mandate but only partially fulfills it since the ground-water provisions are not included. The second mandate is more general and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable to requirements EPA follows for its permitting program for similar hazardous material. EPA incorporated some,of its pennitting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but
. left to NRC discretion which additional requirements might be appropriate.
1 Licensees are faced with two sets of regulations for ground water and NRC
]
has not fully responded to either mandate.
2
! 3. Alternatives i
i A range of alternative approaches to ruiemaking are possible from a simple i incorporation by reference to 40 CFR 192 for ground water to the I development of a new part that would be a total rewrite of existing NRC l and EPA regulations. The new part could include covering uranium recovery
- activities not specifically addressed by current regulations j (e.g., in situ operations) and comprehensive new requirements based on
! EP/ 's full range of requirements. Initial plans a year ago were to follow-an approach somewhere between these two extremes, but closer to the comprehensive new part than the simple incorporation by reference.
The current state of the domestic uranium industry and projected outlook i
have prompted a reassessment of the best approach for rulemaking. Poor ,
market conditions, over-production, and cheaper foreign imports have resulted in a strong downturn in uranium production needs. Only a few l mills remain in operation. This downturn in production means a corresponding downturn in licensing activity. No new conventional sites are anticipated and the regulatory focus will be on interim stabilization I -
)
1 I ,
. 4
. 1
- 1 i
4 and deconsnissioning. Both the Division of Waste Management and Uranium Recovery Field Office (URF0) in Denver, are examining the industry outlook ,
and working to define our long-term regulatory strategy for uranium recovery.
A comprehensive rulemaking would involve considerable resources ('several FTE over a period of 3-4 years). The usefulness of new' regulations or major revisions may have diminished to the point where less formal implementation guidance may be more appropriate, at least for the foreseeable future. The legal climate also remains uncertain. Both industry and environmental groups have pending lawsuits against the EPA standards. Their suits do not impact cur legal responsibilities, but they do reflect the controversial arena facing the rulemaking.
Three specific alternatives are under staff consideration: ,
- a. Fulfill the conformance mandate by a simple reference in Appendix A of 10 CFP Part 40 to the ground-water standards in 10 CFR Part 192.
Guidance documents would be developed to solve problems such a reference would cause. For example, hard to get cross-referenced EPA rules as codified January 1,1983 would need to be provided and maintained. Guidance on other aspects to clarify minimum
- requirements, functional responsibilities, retrofitting guidance etc.
would also be prepared. Any action to develop additional
. discretionary regulations would be deferred indefinitely. The second Congressional mandate contains no time frame and refers to general requirements not regulations.
- b. Fulfill the conformance mandate by inserting the clearly nondiscretionary ground-water provisions of the EPA standard in 40 CFR 192 and referenced standards. This alternative would eliminate the need to refer to two sets of regulations.
- Implementation guidance would still be needed and developed but the i, amount needed would be reduced. Development of. discretionary
! regulations would also be. deferred indefinitely under this alternative.
- c. Proceeding with' development of new part as originally planned.
! 4. Proposed Action The extended comment period on the ANPRM ends March 1, 1985. Analysis of i
comments and reassessment of the need reflected by the state of the industry will continue through February and March. After these efforts are complete, a decision on whether and how to proceed will be made. A supplement to this finding outlining the reconsnended course of action will be forwarded.
t l
I
i l
- 5. Effects of Proposed Action i Balancing the scope of rulemaking with licensing needs will result in the best use of NRC resources. The EPA standards are already binding on Commission licensees and NRC is obligated to implement and enforce them.
Thus no reduction in protection of the public health and safety and the environment is involved in delays in determining current needs or in reduced scope of rulemaking. Reduced scope will only involve more case specific decisions on the part of licensees and licensing staff.
- 6. Resources and Schedule To be developed when the rulemaking approach is selected. Assistance in value/ impact analyses to support decisions related to this rulemaking is being planned under an existing contract with Pacific Northwest
' aborctories . The Office of Research is dev'oping agency-wide
)> v_alue/ impact methodologies and is willing to negotiate this effort as a case study. Research needs experience not relating to reactors. Other contractual support on technical matters such as aquifer restoration will be needed whether guidance or regulations are dominant. Simple incorporation by reference (Alternative a.) can be completed in less than a year. A comprehensive effort would extend over 3-4 years (Alternative c.). Alternative b. would fall between.
I 6
a
- - - , , - _. - - , -----.---.--.__.-e-, _
e . --
-..--+.~.eca . m . o. a ~ . - - .
B.5 BACKGROUND REFERENCES 9
Documents relating to this rulemaking include the following:
- 1. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control A:t of 1978, as amended.
- 2. SECY-83-523, " Proposed ~ Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", December 28, 1983.
- 3. SECY-83-523A, "Prt posed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523)", Fe bruary 3,1984.
- 4. Memorandum for the Commissioners from Dircks, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523 and 523A)", Ma,rch 2, 1984.
- 5. Memorandum for the Commissioners from OGC, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523 and -523A)", March 14, 1984.
- 6. Memorandum for the Commissioners from the Chairman, " Tentative Recommendations Concerning Mill Tailings Resulting from Meeting on April 19,1984", April 20,1984.
- 7. Memorandum for Dircks from Chilk, "SECY-83-523/523A - Proposed Amendments
.to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", July 10, 1984.
- 8. Memorandum for Chilk from Rehm, "SECY-83-523/523A - Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Policy Statement", July 25, 1984.
- 9. Memorandum for Dircks from Chilk, " Commission Action on Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations", November 2, 1984
- 10. FRN 49 FR 46425 dated November.26, 1984.
- 11. FRN 50 FR 2293 dated. January 16, 1985.
NOTE: Items 10 and 11 are included as B.2. Other doeurents are available in the files if desired. In view of the reassessment and supplement to follow, the other documents were not provided.
I)
I L
e 1
I
- 9 1
.c 4
B.6 e
e E00 RECUESTED INFORfMTION e
o None o
e G
e
. _ _ _ _ _