ML20210Q648
| ML20210Q648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1986 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Phillips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q655 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46425, FRN-51FR24697, RULE-PR-40 AB56-1-41, NUDOCS 8605140191 | |
| Download: ML20210Q648 (105) | |
Text
'
.See fIc pod.d-F f wd
%M R.c d Fi e
"'" " @ d E - Y O Docket No.f5NWW s"
ffMP-kim Distribelion:
A8,:.5'4 -/
APim7J85 L jpg 213/MH/86/04/25 lr '
MEMORANDUM FOR:
John Philips, Chief ujMirioution:
Rules & Procedures Branch
.AfM 213 r/f
'DE Martin Division of Rules & Records WMLU r/f D Mausshardt Office of Administration NMSS s/f MR Knapp JO Bunting JG Davis FROM:
Robert E. Browning, Director MJ Bell S Cornell Division of Waste Management RE Browning AB-56-1(DCS)
Office of Nuclear Material Safety K Dragonette S Gayner, PA 4
and. Safeguards ED0 r/f
.M Haisfield
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULEMAKING
" URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS GROUND-WATER PROTECTION AND OTHER ISSUES"; SECY-86-43 Enclosed is a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to Samuel J. Chilk's memorandum dated April 14, 1986 to Victor Stello, Jr.
Because of the changes noted below, enclosure 1 should be circulated to the Commission staff prior to signature of enclosure 2 by Mr. Chilk. We have. coordinated this matter with Dr. Andy Bates.of the Secretary's office.
~
~
S'taff of the EPA have reviewed the proposed rule and have suggested.we clarify that this rulemaking package only covers conformance with applicable general EPA standards (Section 84a(2) of the' Uranium Mill ~ Tailings Radiation Control Act).
Section 84a(3) requires the NRC to have requirements comparable to EPA's Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) regulations and requires EPA concurrence.
EPA will not be concurring in this rule since it covers only Section 84a(2).
As noted above, the law requires the NRC to be comparable to EPA's SWDA requirements.
EPA staff agree that a major rulemaking to incorporate discretionary SWDA requirements is not appropriate at this time.
The proposed changes clarify that NRC and EPA will consult on any generic (not site-specific) SWDA-related guidance and policy documents which may be developed.
Such consultation would provide EPA the opportunity to review revisions to NRC licensing practice for consistency with requirements under SWDA regulations.
Staff of both agencies believe that EPA consultation on generic SWDA-related documents would help assure the needed agreement on the best way to meet the 84a(3) requirement.
i l
Proposed changes to the proposed rule notice also update the curront situation t
with New Mexico. contains the rationale for the chantes and shows the changes to the notice in pen and ink on the affected pages.
All of the proposed changes are contained within the Supplementary Information.
There are only minor editorial' changes to the proposed rule.
%an %.L9 L
>g k'A, )?.U As r 'd l
OFC :WMLU: rj
- WMLU
- WMLU
- WMLU WM
- WM j
NAME :M Haisfield :K Dragonette:DE Martin
- MR Knapp
- MJ Bell
- RE Browning :
l DATE :86/04/
- 86/04/
- 86/04/
- 86/04/
- 86/04/
- 86/04/
,.h 1
213/MH/86/04/25 APR 2 8 266. Enclosure 2 is the retyped notices for signature and forwarding to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Congressional letters' are enclosed for forwarding to the Office of Congressional Affairs for dispatch in enclosure 3.
Please inform Public Affairs when the notice appears in the Federal Register so-that they can finalize the public announcement.
The.only date insertion required is on the first page of the notice in the "Date" section.
Thank you for your help on this project.
Origincl Signed by MICHAEL J. BET, Robert E. Browning, Director
~~
Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
Rationale and pen and ink pages 2.
FRN (original and 6 copies) 3.
Congressional letters i
n
..... :._ _ _ _ _ _ _._f /_ : WM L U
- lti
- WM 0FC
- WMLU:rj,,
- WMLU, q.____::W.MLU gg_____:._
y :_...
t tin
- MR Knapp Bell
- Rf' ning :
i NAME :M Haisfield :K Dragone/_te:
DATE :86/04/g f
- 86/04/ p
- 86/04/2 (
- 86/04/77- :86/04/2P
- 86/04/ 2 8
. -. _ = _
.=
f
.i' i'
i Rationale for proposed Changes to SECY-86-43:
Staff of the EPA have reviewed the proposed rule and have suggested we clarify that this rulemaking package only covers conformance with applicable general i
EPA standards (Section 84a(2) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Control Act). Section 84a(3) requires the NRC to have requirements comparable to EPA's Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWOA) regulations and requires EPA concurrence. EPA will not be concurring in this rule since it covers only Section 84a(2).
As noted aboVe' the 'l'aw requires the NRC to be comparable to EPA's'SWDA
~^
discretionary SWDA, staff agree that a major rulemaking to incorporata requirements.. EPA requirements is not appropriate at this time. The proposed
. changes clarify that NRC and EPA will consult on any generic-(not site-specific)'SWDA-related guidance and policy documents which may be developed. Such consultation would provide EPA the opportunity to review 6
m revisions to'NRC licensing practice for consistency of requirements under SWDA regulations.
Staff of both agencies believe that EPA consultation on generic SWOA-related documents would help assure the needed agreement on~ the best way'to meet the 84a(3) requirement.
- Proposed changes to the proposed rule notice also update the current situation with New Mexico.
Changes from the previous version are shown by a pen and ink markup. Only those pages changed are included. All of the proposed changes are contained within the Supplementary Infonnation. There are only minor editorial changes to the proposed rule.
l 4
4
(7590-G1]
I NL' CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations:
Ground-Water Protection i
and Other Issues l
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The pro-posed changes are intended to incorporate into existing NRC regulations ew=/h ass /r*< 44) the ground ' water protection h.sfus,j,tir.0 published by the Environmenta Protection Agency (EPA) for these wastes.
This action is being taken to
- comply with the mandate in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 to conform the NRC regulations to the standards promulgated by the EPA.
DATE: The comment period expires on (60 days after publication).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is pract'ical to do so but assurance of consideration may not be-given except for comments received on or before this date.
l ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 am 1
- 7590-01]
the Commission to obtain the concurrence of the Administrator'in any site specific alternative which satisfies Commission requirements for the level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards at uranium mill tailings sites.
As an example, the Commission need not seek concurrence of the Admini-strator in case-by-casa determinations of alternative concentration limits and delisting of hazardous constituents for specific sites.
It should be understood that the proposed conforming regulations oeal with the exercise of the Commission's responsibility and authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, solely as regards uranium mill tailings sitas and have no broader connotation.
The Commission believes that ifcensee proposals for alternatives can'be an important and effective way to help deal with the problems asso-ciated with implementing the new EPA standards.
The Commission expects that it may require several years to have its conforming regulations fully in place.
It expects to use the flexibility provided by section 84 in the interim to consider and approve alternative preposals frec licensees.
Section 84c. provides NRC sufficient authority to independently approve alternatives so long as the Commission can make the required determination.
VI.
SCOPE OF THIS PROPOSAL The relevant Federh) legislation on uranium mill tailings contains two 1
ytyo
- and, Section5z75f(3)oftheAEAh'.-E-:^.
require /NRCtocon-mandates.
form to the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192.
The rulemaking published October 167 1985.(50 FR 41852) responded.to this mandate but.only. partially....
i fulfills it since ground-water provisions of the EPA standards were not 15
---..,my-.-
..y._m...
m-,,.
.m ----.---e-- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
(7590-01]
incorporated. 'The second mandate in section 84a(3) of the AEA is more general and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable with EPA's requirements for management of similar hazardous material under SWDA.
EPA incorporated some of its SWOA permit-ting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but left
. a h in s/r**nt eer NY A u&r compnhi/./7 wiH SWQ to NRC discretion a.'.R y dditional requirement.s y g
- .yg i y. ; ;'..y Alternative approaches for this rulemaking range from a reference to 40 CFR Part 192 requirements for ground-water protection to development of comprehensive new regulations.
Three specific alternatives were considered for this rulemaking:
1.
Fulfill the conformance mandate by referen'cing in Appendix'A of 10 CFR Part 40, the ground-water standards in 40 CFR Part'192.
Extensive guidance documentation would have to be pre' pared to clarify the requirements imposed by the referenced standards in SWDA regula-tions.
Development of discretionary regulations would be deferred.
2.
Fulfill the conformance mandate by inserting into 10 CFR Part 40
-the clearly nondiscretionary ground-water provisions of the EPA stanc-ard specifically referred to in 40 CFR Part 192, as well as selected and closely related referenced standards.
This alternative would elminate the need to refer to two sets of regulations.
Implementation guidance would still be needed and developed, but the amount needed would be reduced.
Development of discretionary regulationshg cov//
also be deferred under this alternative.
16
.. ::u-C ' i The peor outlook for comestic production means a corresponding down-turn in new facility licensing activity.
In the aosence of license appli-cations for new conventional uranium mills, the regulatory focus will be on interim stabilization, decommissioning, and reclamation of mill tailings sites no' longer in operation.
In the application of the ground-water pro-visions of 40 CFR Part 192 to existing sites, site specific decisions will predominate. These site specific decisions would not likely benefit greatly from generic rulemaking.
Alternative ominimize[useofNRCresourcesuntilEPAissues standards applicable to other mining and milling wastes. E
!=r=--
9 -2: : : g_ ;
r_ " :y : " --
.._g-----
,,,,,_,,,,4
-J 7...:...
o...._;;;
T Future EPA standards for these wastes y
might include prescriptive features that NRC would consider appropriate to apply to mill tailings.
Liner and corrective action technology for mining
-wastes can mature, and future rulemaking could draw on the experience resulting from site specific application of the general requirements already imposed.
The difficult climate for consensus because of divergent views and lack of data on risks and health effects related to hazardous consti-tuents may diminish as EPA develeps and issues additional quantitative standards.
Although the potential for deferred rulemaking would still exist under Alternative 2, it would reduce the near-term uncertainty.
Further, a comparison of the EPA's SWOA regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 and existing NRC regulations indicates that the conformed.NRC regulations ine/ ele re/r m F would[eevec] all the major egulatory principles in the SWOA rules.
The differences between the conformed NRC regulations and the EPA SWD re... -
.ames)would-primarily be in the level of detail and specificity or in aspects that are not necessarily needed for mill tailings management.
Experience from I
site specific implementation can be used to identify areas where clarification 18
- s.... 2 or accitional details mignt be needed in NRC's regulations or guidance documents.
The mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the AEA requires NRC to assure that byproduct material is managed in a manner that " conforms to general require-ments established by the Commission, with the concurrence of the Admini -
strator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended." The mandateh;;...,........;_.. d represents a continuing NRC responsibility to be sure that the overall uranium recovery regulatory framework is comparable to EPA rules for similar hazardous material.
The Commission believes that the combination of chnformed regulat' ions, policy and guidance, and license conditions can.
with coorda fi. <. rift //A u geoeria polics **/ 3eidoney adequately meet this manoate for the foreseeanle futuriK Further, the
~
j Commission anticipates that EPA will address the important issue of l
protection of ground-water with respect to mineral ore processing wastes.
The nonradioactive constituents in uranium mill process wastes appear to be more comparable to the hazards in such other ores than to the chemical process wastes to which the S'a0A rules primarily apply.
VII.
CCCROINATICN WITH EPA The action proposed in this. notice is undertaken pursuant to sections W(,1 ad 275(3) of the AEA and reflects requirements already imposed by EPA, and already subject to implementation and enforcement by NRC under section 275d of the AEA.
&arekre flit l ole **4 does no /
Hjune f FA coircerrenee.
19
. - - _ -. -, _ - - -., -, _. _.. _. ~,.. _. _ _ _. -. _ _ _, _ - _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ -, _,. _,.. -.., _. _ _.,. _.. - _. _ _ _,. _. _., _, _ _... -. _ _ _ _
.iho-QL Fo the reasons discussed in th previous section, the Commission considers 't inappropriate to co der this rulemaking as requiring EPA concurrence u er section 84
) of the AEA.
The EPA has not yet promul-gated standards or "sim ar hazardous material" (i.e., mineral are pro-cessing wastes) un the SWOA.
The Commission notes that some of these comparable soli aste, including uranium mining wastes, are not considered I
l hazardous u er EPA's ru s.
See 40 CFR 26L4(b)(7).
3 L
The Commission [-a4+e] notes that EPA addressed the issue of EPA concurrence in its October 7, 1983 notice on 40 CFR Part 192 (see 48 FR 45942).
EPA referred to NRC's responsibitity under UMTRCA to implement EPA's standards and to be comparable to EPA requirements for similar hazardous materials.
EPA indicated that it expected to ".... insure
'thatNRC'sregulationssatisfythese(UMTRCA]admonitid[isthroughits concurrence role." Specific provisions of the SWOA standards were
. identified as incorporated 'into 40 CFR Part 192 and other provisions were listed by EPA as " relevant." The listed " relevant" regulations include prescriptive general requirements for aspects such as data collection and i
analysis for the various ground-water monitoring programs and site inspections.
EPA expected NRC to incorporate into it(-
jrules i'
discretionary general requirements from the listed " relevant" regulations.
Thus, EPA expected to concur in these general requirements. However, none of the general requirements from the listed " relevant" regulations are proposed for incorporation in this proposed rule.
[er ' M re<sm Mtc will cake 4
casdf witt BM ss wn-re//d m Nen not* cwere*l fr gesem fld fryset rde-anj N sr/er A u.rw< condo ;
cn &r - ca A
Me m A J &
.sc o %
reyao) 4 un nu.
20 i
t.<2 w s.3 VIII.
CONTENT OF THIS PROPOSAL The EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 192, (48 FR 45926) included by reference ground-water protection standards in 40 CFR Part 264.
Part 264 was promulgated by the EPA pursuant to authority provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which amended the SWDA.
Part 264 itself contains references to other EPA rules and a number of internal cross references.
Determining what provisions EPA actually imposed was thus not a completely straightforward exercise.
In deciding the precise language to incorporate, the Ccmmission generally had the following objectives in ming:
s, develyiqf ffess emfemmf refwhk fM*'**? A.HN tve) */
SW F O).
1.
Preserve the traditional EPA and NRC roles in which EPA issues general standards and NRC conducts the detailed implementation and
' enforcement program.
2.
Incorporate only those imposed provisions where NRC has no legal discretion to deviate on a generic basis.
3.
Provide maximum flexibility to implement the standards in guidance and site specific licensing decisions.
4.
Develop a NRC regulation that is self-contained without references to EPA's SWOA regulations.
5.
Change EPA's language and add implementation features only where necessary to make the incorporated standards understandable in the 21
(7590-01]
Subpart K 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operating requirements for surface impoundments.
EPA also indicated that the folicwing specific sections should be addressed by NRC in implementing the standards.
The Commission will addressthesesectionsofEPA'sregulationsinguidancedocuments[.and g
- " :;::i 'i _ ' E... '.., _ _ _.. h=]as needed. lu 3
Cnse//rASr will $ A4, 91 Subpart F f g,y a f,J ' yy,4,,,
40 CFR 264.91 Required programs.
b/'l 40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance.
40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period.
40 CFR 264.97 General ground-water monitoring requirements.
40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring p'rogram.
40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program.
Subpart G 40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and use of property.
Subpart K 40 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and inspection.
I 40 CFR 264.228 Closure and post-closure care.
The following narrative discusses how the imposed provisions of the EPA standard are being incorporated into 10 CFR Part 40.
1 The Introduction to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 contains general information, concepts, and clarification of. terminology. The proposed addition to the Introduction defines new terms usea in the proposed addi-tions to Criteria 5, 6, and 7.
The definitions for aquifer, dike, existing pcrtion, ground water, leachate, licensed site, liner, surface impoundment,.
l l
23 l
[
l
[7590-01]
4 to Criterion 5 contains Table 1 of 5264.94 with the supplemental radicactiv-ity limits added.
Preposed new Criterion 13 to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 Ifsts the hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 referenced in $254.93 with molybdenum, uranium, thorium and radium-226 and radium-228 added.
Criterion 13 also explains that gross alpha activity will be treated as a hazardous constituent.
The Commission assumes that the addition of limits for radium-226 and radium-228 and gross alpha activity (ses 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(fi)) to Table 1 also meant that they should be treated as naz-ardous constituents-Such treatment is procedurally required to apply the limits.
In drafting paragraphs SB(1)-(6) of the proposed revisions to Appendix A i
to 10 CFR.Part 40, the Commiss, ion.saphasized the site specific decisions called for in the secondary standard.
The principal feature of the secondary standard not incorporated is the modification of the scheme by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v).
Paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of 40 CFR 192.32 states that "The regulatory agency may establish alternate concentration limits...provided that, after considering practicable corrective corrective 1
actions, these limits are as low as reasentbly achievable and... the standards i
of $ 264.94(a) are satisfied at all points at a greater distance than 500 meters from the edge of the disposal area and/or outside the site boundary."
5192.32(a)(2)(iv)f=r:
"$- ('i: ;-
- ' ' t - ~ ;- : ----~ir m
- P y _;
n.-s.a.-
_ _g; ;;, ;_ _ g -
1=17 _ __ y i m '__
_ :---- n_, ::-yhd solely for the purpose of allowing independent NRC actio Because the Commission believes that EPA exceeded its authority in so 1 itingNRCactionj-='t____; -.
..... w o is
- > " = -
u - u _._2 1, ; t-
- r m...... _.........on o,.. z seeee] the proposed modifications to CFR Part 40 do not i~nclude o 500 hfdH3 26 n n s;/, b,vd.7
(7590-01,'
{
the value of yellowcake produced depending on the type ano extent of corree-tive actions.
C.
Impacts on Other Requirements and Persons NRC and Licensee Staffino - The major impacts of the selected alternative on NRC programs is the resource savings of the reduced rule-making scope and the reduced need to develop or modify existing guidance documents.
Because the EPA standards are already imposed, the rulemaking j
itself has no direct effect on licensing actions.
Licensees will probably have to increase staff and/or use consultants to some degree to comply with the ground water protection standards in interim and final reclamation pro-grams.
The depressed state of the industry has resulted in significant 1
licensee staff reductions and uncertainties. Thus, it is difficult to assess 'the impact of th'e rulemaking itself on the licensees' fluid staffing *
( 7), (,,,,,
,(
situation.
4*'#8"2'/*J Aareement' States - There are four Agreement States regulating uranium i
repres/e/ 1% f N e p g fe,yp,f milling and mill tailings that will be impacted by the proposed ground-water N' 8 'N" J' protection regulations:
Texas,NewMexichColorado,andWashington.
Fol-par vrwener
/n///s ed mi//
lowing promulgation of final rules by the Commission, each of the four States y
]# J' /'M/r will need to amend their uranium milling regulations so that the State's N#
b h f / forel l iI regulatory program for uranium mills remains equivalent to, to the extent p
practicable, or more stringent than, the NRC's regulatory l program for urani
/
shree f$r.S/*f*s are dre*// ref*Arl by * *'
7'* IWe ***
mi111ng.femr, Aa Zi"4 s/enhoh. ?G sibe'l Ns tv/t*'eruj wd/ ccaf am enforce r l
r u/< fans, f$ne.shed de swm/ iorfmeX rendum of Understandino (M00) With EPA - Negotiations on a MOU with EPA were initiated soon after the EPA standards were issued in October of 1983 to facilitate NRC implementation of the standards, to reduce inconsistencies, and to clarify responsibilities.
Several draft MOU's i
l have been discussed with EPA since that time. Many of the original issues which were to be addressed by the MOU have been resolved and the main 43
procedures.
NRC has also taken enforcement action for violation of tne liner requirement in the standard.
The depressed state of the industry has minimized the need to implement certain aspects of the ground water protection standards.
For example, ifcensees do not need new impoundments when they are not operating.
NRC will continue to implement and enforce the standards on a site specific basis in the interim while this rulemaking is pending.
The public should also note that for several years prior to promulga-tion of the EPA standards, NRC has been implementing programs to protect ground-water quality at NRC-licensed facilities.
All new impoundments licensed by NRC since 1977 have been lined with either synthetic or natural materials.
All facilities have in place ground-water monitoring systems
' designed to locate' and quantify seepage from the impouridsents.
Approximately three-fourths of the facilities have' remedial or mitigative programs in place
. to intercapt and return contaminated ground water to the impoundsents.
Enhanced water evaporation systems are also used at four facilities.
The EPA /NRC cooperative efforts on generic methodologies for deter-mining acceptable alternate concentration limits were discussed earlier under " Content of this Proposal." Any decisions needed before mutually l
acceptable methodologies are in place will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Licensing decisions will be made in accordance with the health and
{
~
j safety and environmental standards imposed by the EPA standard as reflected j
in the proposed modifications in this present action M/ o ntS/s//a/
j gy$ gjjrofhe/c JW9A
?e u/*f n.
l l
l 46 t
".7590-0Z E.
Relationshio to Other Existino or P-coosed NRC Recuirements 10 CFR Part 10 - The modifications proposed by this action complete the mandate to conform NRC rules to the EPA standards.
The modifications have been integrated into Appendix A of Part 40 to consolidate tooics to the extent practicabia.
SWOA Comoarable Chances - The mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the AEA on comparability to SWOA reoufrements has been addressed previously,.
The
/WJ/
Commission's regulations and licensing requirements will cover 4he basic elements of the SWOA regulations when the present action is completed.
The Commission does no consider detailed regulations necessary to accom-qs f ffit plish the AEA manoate The Commission will continue to monitor DOE and industry assessments of the state of the industry, evolution of the tech-nologies associated with the SWOA regulations, NRC and Sf. ate licensing.
experience, and EPA ground-water pcifcy development and rulemaking for
.miningandsimilarwastes.[asedoncurrentassessmentsofthestateof the industry, the need or additional rulemaking to accommodate applica-tiens for new mills would procably be at least 5 years away.
None of the other factors to be monitored suggest the need for Cosmiission rulemaking any sooner.
Petition for Rulemakino - On November 30, 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission published in the Federal Register (47 FR 53889) a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking suositted by the Union Carbide Corporation (PRM-40-24).
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend i
Criteria 1, 5, S and 10 of 10 CFR 40 Appendix A.
The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the idequacy of existing tailings disposal es the seepage of toxic materisis into the ground water,.the earth f f p (am i s,6, M //
o/p CrnNn 6 cmsuH w;ff st d o
l concersaj carfer*N/dy of Us fto
- 4r 13SWM m
' regnieweds. A ssady no mejor fyr,,,uie dere/sp nd
s nu-0.;
s cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on the mill operator to cover the costs of long term surveillance.
The petitioner believes that its suggested changes would significantly reduce compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities and would continue to adequately protect the public health, safety and the environment.
lW The NRC is required by h ;,% 1.;T.e.i;;tio,, J.G ef 00hto conform its uranium mill tailings regulations to the final standards issued by the EPA for uranium and thorius mill tailings.
The NRC has chosen to meet this mandate in two rulemaking proceedings that set out amendments to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
The final rule published October 16, 1985,(50 FR 41852), c'osplete'd the first rtilemaking actio'n. ',
That final rule revised Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in order to conform
,these provisions to EPA's standards for all EPA requirements except those relating to ground-water protection.
This proposed rule, which is part of the second rulemaking proceeding, proposes the amendments to Appendix A to Part 40 the NRC believes necessary to incorporate EPA's ground-water protection requirements into its regulations.
Most of the issues raised by the petitioner would amend portions of Appendix A to Part 40 affected by these rulemaking actions designed to conform NRC regulations to EPA standards.
The amendments suggested by the petitioner for Criterion 5 concern i
ground-water issues which are addressed in detail in this proposed rule.
i The petitioner requested that Criterion 5 be amended to give consideration
[
to the use, characteristics, size, and avilability of ground water for pctable use in determining potentially deleterious impacts of tallings l
49
.---.~.-~._----,,r_,
m
__--,--nn,,,-.
L..
.o h//C/ Q
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 40
~
Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground-Water Protection and Other Issues AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings.
The pro-posed changes are intended to incorporate into existing NRC regulations the generally applicable ground-water protection standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for these wastes. This action is being taken to comply with the mandate in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 to conform the NRC regulations to the standards promulgated by the EPA.
DATE: The comment period expires on (60 days after publication).
Coments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of consideration may not be given except for comments received on or before this date.
A00RESSES: Mail coments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 am 1
'e s
[7590-01]
and 5:00 pm weekdays. Comments received on the Advance Notice of Pro-posed Rulemaking may be examined at the Comission's Public Docket Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 am and 5:00 pm weekdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Fonner, Office of the Executive Legal Director, telephone (301) 492-8692, or Kitty S. Dragonette, Divis' ion of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Background
II.
Overview of'Comraents in Response to ANPRM Summary of Comments on Specific Issues Listed in ANPRM IV.
Issues Previously Resolved V.
Commission Authority and Responsibility VI.
Scope of this Proposal VII.
Coordination with EPA VIII.
Content of this Proposal IX.
Impact of the Proposed Modifications and Regulatory Analysis Considerations A.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact B.
Costs and 8enefits of the Modifications 1.
Synthetic Liners 2.
Alternatives to Synthetic Liners 3.
Ground-water Monitoring 4.
Alternate Concentration Limits 2
8 t
(7590-01]
5.
Closure 6.
Corrective Actions for Ground-Water Contamination C.
Impacts on Other Requirements and Persons 0.
Implementation E.
Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed NRC Requirements X.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XI.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification XII.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40 XIII.
Proposed Modifications e
I.
BACKGROUNO The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is proposing additional modifications to its regulations for the purpose of conforming them to generally applicable requirements promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA requirements contained in Subparts D and E of 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983) apply to the manage-ment of uranium and thorium byproduct material and became effective for NRC and Agreement State licensees and license applicants on December 6, 1983.
This proposed action would modify existing regulations of the Commission to incorporate the EPA ground water protection requirements found in 40 CFR Part 192. The affected Commission regulations are contained in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, which was promulgated in final form on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65521) and amended on October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852) to conform to the provisions of the EPA standards affecting matters other than ground-water protection.
3
(
i
[7590-01]
EPA developed and issued its regulations pursuant to Section 275b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2022); section 275b was added by section 206 of Pub. L.95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978'(UMTRCA).
These EPA regulations included, by cross-reference, certain regulations issued by EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). Under section 18(a) of Pub. L.97-415, the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Commission was directed to conform its regulations to EPA's with notice and opportunity for public comment. Comments are requested on choices and decisions the NRC must make concerning issues and actions that are within its discretion. Comments on the basic value, validity, lawfulness, or appro-priateness of EPA's SWDA regulations are not requested.
II. OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ANPRM 4
The additional action that the Commission might take to amend its mill tailings regulations for ground-water protection was the subject of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published for comment on November 26, 1984 (49 FR 46425). The comment period on the ANPRM originally expired on January 25, 1985 but was extended until March 1, 1985 (50 FR 2293; January 16, 1985).
Four environmental groups, six industrial representatives, four states, and two Federal agencies responded.
Copies of the responses and a staff analysis of the comments received are available in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The ANPRM described NRC's tentative approach for the ground-water protection modifications.
Comments generally addressed this approach.
Ten specific issues were listed in the ANPRM for comment and commenters 4
s (7590-01]
addressed each of the tan issues. Commenters also repeated or referenced issues raised in comments submitted on the proposed rule for conforming to standards other than those pertaining to ground-water protection, (40 FR 46418; November 24, 1984). These comments were addressed in the final rulemaking (50 FR 41852, October 16, 1985).
The issues associated with this proposed rule are presented under topics IV through VIII. Because of the nature of the comments, the Commission was able to respond to issues rather than individual comments.
Some of the comments were helpful in the decision on scope of rule-making.
Some were useful in clarifying or emphasizing points in drafting the proposed amendments. Others will be useful as the Commission continues to implement the regulations and develop or modify guidance documents.
Elements of NRC's overall approach described in the ANPRM included consolidating all SWDA related requirements, eliminating cross-references to EPA standards, including all 40 CFR provisions already imposed by EPA (40 CFR 264.92-94, 264.100, 264.111, and 254.221) and considering all other provisions of 40 CFR Part 264 listed in the preamble to 40 CFR Part 192.
All categories of commenters addressed the general or overall approach NRC should take.
Industry commenters urged P. C to revise substantially the SWDA requirements to reflect the differences between tailings and other hazard-out wastes and the isolated location of most tailings sites.
Industry commenters also emphasized that tailings more closely resemble mining wastes t
and that wastes from other parts of the mining industry have not been sub-jected to the hazardous waste rules in 40 CFR Part 264.
Industry repeated and referenced arguments raised on the companion NRC rulemaking that NRC should reject the EPA standards and undertake an independent new rulemaking 5
e
[7590-01]
that balances risks and costs and that the EPA standards are flawed on technical and jurisdictional grounds.
New NRC regulations advocated by industry would retain the aquifer use standards and include generic alter-native requirements and flexibility rather than relying solely on licensee developea alternatives to provide flexibility and potentially more cost effective solutions.
One environmental group suggested that NRC develop comprehensive new requirements including vadose (unsaturated) zone monitoring and use the SWDA requirements only as a baseline.
EPA, one state, and the environmental commenters repeated concerns about the delayed confomance and urged prompt action. States concurred in the approach to develop a unified set of regulations that can stand alone without cross-references to 40 CFR Part 264.
EPA provided a copy of its recently published " Groundwater Protection Strategy" and suggested that this document be considered in developing additional requirements, particularly on levels of ground-water cleanup.
III.
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES LISTED IN ANPRM Public coment was requested on ten specific issues or questions.
Comenters were asked to provide the basis in fact for any opinions offered or assertions made.
In the following discussion, each issue is repeated and an overview of issues raised in comments is given.
Issue (1):
Should the SWDA-comparable requirements to be placed in NRC regulations be explicitly restated to precisely dupilcate EPA's language, or should substantive requirements be paraphrased?
Most commenters addressing this point supported paraphrasing. One 1
state urged maximum comparability with the EPA standards on both procedural 6
e a
4
[7590-01]
and substantive aspects.
EPA urged restatement except where administrative 1y inappropriate.
Issue (2):
Should all of Subpart F be included? What should not be j
included?
Industry suggested that Subpart F be changed in varying degrees to i
accommodate the differences between tailings and hazardous waste.
EPA, an-environmental group, and one state advocated incorporating all of Subpart F.
j Others suggested including all substantive parts of Subpart F.
Based on i
comments by all categories of commenters, whatever text is developed for insertion in NRC regulations needs to make sense in general and make sense e
for application to tailings. Flexibility is a paramount concern.
Issue (3): What should be included in a listing of hazardous j
constituents for mill tailings to replace the 375-item-long list in Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 referenced in 40 CFR 264.937 Should constituents not usually present or not present above trace levels be 1
included? What criteria should be applied to decide what constituents should be included?
I Most commenters addressing this issue advocated an abbreviated list that reflects the hazardous constituents of concern in tailings.
Comments acknowledged that hazardous constituents of concern will be site specific.
'i A trace amount approach for hazardous constituents was suggested by a number j
of comments.
Industry suggested that NRC develop a generic list of hazard-i i
aus constituents relevant to tailings and set concentration limits for each i
based on health and environmental effects of each.
The diverse nature of i
l the comments suggested that decisions on health effects from hazardous constituents will be controversial because of the lack of precision in estimating health effects from nonradiological materials.
l 7
e
[7590-01]
EPA pointed out the provision in 40 CFR 264.93(b) to exclude hazardous constituents but cautioned that a generic waiver could require a very dif-ficult demonstration.
EPA emphasized the site specific flexibility pro-vided by the provisions that hazardous constituents are those that have been detected in groundwater underlying a regulated unit and that are reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste.
The second test can take into account the site specific ore composition, operating history, and leachate data.
t Issue 4:
The NRC must establish SWDA-comparable requirements to the maximum extent practicable.
In this context, what is practicable given current practice and the current state of technology?
Industry noted that the weight loading and hydraulic head in a tailings impoundment means that some seepage is likely over the long term.
Industry also challenged the practicality of the liner, requirement based on cost, on liner instability when installed over large areas, and on creatian of a " bathtub effect" which requires active maintenance of a leachate collec-tion system.
Industry pointed out the practical problem with artificially dewatering tailings, particularly the slimes, and the cross purpose posed by the requirement for essentially immediate emplacement of thick covers 4
which would inhibit natural dewatering.
One commenter stated that it is practicable to establish the I
hydrogeological characteristics and attenuative properties at mill sites and to plan, conduct, and interpret ground-water monitoring.
States i
stressed the importance of the site and impoundment design and construction I
and expressed reservations about primary reliance on a synthetic ifner for i
ground-water protection. One state Ifsted three areas of questionable i
practicality:
(1) ability to monitor all 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VI!!'
i l
8
(7590-01]
constituents, (2) corrective action to restore aquifers, and (3) the detailed information to approve alternate monitoring requirements.
EPA and an environmental group commented that all of the EPA SWDA standards are practicable.
Issue (5):
Should NRC retain the basic sequence embodied in Subpart F where licensees who detect ground-water contamination progress through a graduated scale of action, from detection monitoring, through compliance monitoring, and on to corrective action, with significant time delays allowed between steps while plans and programs are being developed, reviewed, and implemented? Would it be advisable, practicable or appropriate to require, for example, that all NRC licensees have approved compliance monitoring programs that are automatically activated and implemented when needed?
Six commenters recommended that licensees have compliance monitoring programs that are automatically activated and implemented.
Industry disagreed. All categories of comenters suggested that the basic sequence in Subpart F be retained. An environmental group expressed concerns that the sequence will allow too much time to elapse before corrective actions are implemented.
EPA noted that the elements in Subpart F can all be included in the license with automatic triggers to avoid delays. One comenter expressed concern about the need to accomodate the large size of tailings impoundments in monitoring prograins. One comenter noted that development of contingency plans up front would help design for closure and corrective action. One state urged maximum use of existing monitoring programs.
Industry urged flexibility to accomodate site specific circumstances.
Issue (6):
Should the basic SWOA scheme for the timing and duration of a
" compliance" period, a " closure" period, and a " post-closure care" period 9
[7590-01]
be maintained? What modifications, deletions, additions should be made?
Industry noted that the 30 year post-closure care period in SWDA standards conflicts with the UMTRCA provisions for transfer to the govern-ment after stabilization.
Industry also noted that the SWDA requirement for completing closure in 180 days after operations stop is inconsistent with the need to dewater tailings for 5 to 10 years before final stabili-zation.
Some comments supported the basic SWDA scheme and expressed the view that sufficient flexibility exists to deal with site specific problems.
States supported the concept of a post-closure phase in order to minimize the risk that the goverment agency providing long-term care would have to rectify problems with stabilization, and urged requirements for post-closure care that minimized reliance on active' maintenance.
EPA commented that 40 CFR Part 192 already includes two time periods that are different from SWDA rules and that NRC may need to adopt different closure and post-closure periods for tailings.
Issue (7): To what extent, how, and under what conditions should leak detection systems under single-liner impoundments be allowed to fulfill the requirements for a detection monitoring program that otherwise requires a monitoring well in the uppermost aquifer?
Comments reflected no clear consensus on this issue but expressed the view that this issue should be a site specific decision.
One comment indicated that leak detection systems should fulfill monitoring requirements only when site features under the impoundment would effectively prevent migration to the aquifer. One state questioned the value of a leak detection system in view of the difficulty of repairing leaks under large volumes of tailings and expressed concern about creating migration pathways to the aquifer.
EPA and an environmental group opposed reliance on leak detection systems in place of monitoring because monitoring assures 10
s
[7590-01]
detection of contamination, leak detection systems are subject to failure, and their long-term reliability has not been proven.
Issue (8): How detailed should NRC's regulations be, and what should and should not be required in areas such'as well construction, sampling analysis, determinations of annual average and seasonal background concentrations, minimum detection levels, statistical treatment of data and determinations of statistically significant differences, recordkeeping and reporting, quality assurance, etc?
Two comments recommended specifying details concerning well construction to assure long-term reliable sampling, but the consensus in the comments was that the topics listed are more appropriately addressed in guidance documents. EPA urged that the level of detail be at least equivalent to that of Subpart F but that NRC should maintain flexibility.
EPA acknowledged that implementation of Subpart F involves areas that require further research and development.
Issue (9):
To what extent must the NRC provide supporting environmental impact analyses considering the nature of the requirements under consideration, some of which have already been imposed by EPA and are effective? If supporting environmental evaluations are needed for SWDA-comparable rule changes except for the requirements already imposed by the EPA, should the NRC continue to proceed with only a single rulemaking to establish a complete set of SWDA-comparable requirements?
Three commenters recommended a single rulemaking. One state reemphasized the need for prompt NRC action. A state comment expressed the view that additional analyses would be a wasted effort because certain of the EPA requirements are "unsupportable." One industry comment reiterated that NRC must undertake comprehensive environmental evaluations 11
[7590-01]
of its own. An environmental group repeated its position that conformance coupled with additional rules to be RCRA comparable is a minor effort and of such limited scope not to constitute a major Federal action requiring additional support.
EPA also expressed the view that minimal additional supporting analyses are needed for NRC to issue SWDA-comparable requirements.
Issue (10):
Is the flexibility cited in the proposed addition to the Introduction of Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 40, sufficient or should the NRC develop and support additional modifications to conform to the physical stability aspects of the EPA standard?
Commenters other than industry reflected a consensus that the cited flexibility is sufficient.
Industry expressed concern about the burden on individual licensees to propose and defend specific alternatives, i
States, environmental groups, and EPA opposed any modification of the prescriptive requirements in Appendix A.
An environmental group argued that EPA fully intended that requirements such as those in Appendix A be included in tailings programs in order to assure compliance with its standards and concluded that there is no real difference in NRC's and EPA's approach that warrants any additional changes.
IV.
ISSUES PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED From the Commission's point of view, the following issues were resolved in the first-step rulemaking:
(1) NRC is proceeding with rulemaking and case-by-case implementation and enforcement of the EPA standards on the basis that the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192 are valid and consistent with EPA authority with one 12
[7590-01]
exception. The exception is the requirement for EPA concurrence on site specific decisions in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v).
(2) NRC is not required to undertake a completely new independent rulemaking to justify existing requirements in Appendix A to 10 CFR s
Part 40 by the addition of requirements to consider risks and economic costs to section 84a(1) of the AEA or any other provisions of UMTRCA.
(3) NRC can take the time needed for the second-step rulemaking without compromising protection of the public health and safety and the environment.
(4) NRC can approve site specific alternatives to NRC and EPA standards proposed by licensees without EPA concurrence.
(5) Under section 2740(2) of the AEA, Agreement States are allowed to adopt standards which are equivalent to or more stringent than those promulgated by EPA or NRC.
V.
COMMISSION AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY A Commission statement on its authority and responsibility was included in both the proposed rule notice (49 FR 46418; Novemoer 26, 1984) and the ANPRM. The statement described the Commission's view of the flexibility afforded under section 84c of the AEA and NRC authority to make independent site specific decisions.
The notice of final rulemaking (50 FR 41852; October 16, 1985) addressed the issues raised by commenters on the statement 13
[7590-01]
and affirmed the statement. No new issues were identified in response to the ANPRM. The statement is repeated here for the reader's convenience.
i "Section 84c. of the Atomic Energy Act states that:
'"u-A Licensee may propose alternatives to specific requirements adopted
~
and enforced by the Commission under this_act.
Such alternative proposals may take into account local or regional conditions, includ-ing geology. topography, hydrology and meteorology. The Commission may treat such alternatives as satisfying Commission requirements if the Commission determines that-such alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradio' logical hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose and any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with Section 275.
The Commission historically has had the authority and responsibility to regulate the activities of persons licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Consistent with that authority and in accord-ance with section 84c. of that Act, the Commission has the discretion to review and approve site specific alternatives to standards promulgated by the Commission'and by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the exercise of this authority, section 84c. does not require
'f 14
[7590-01]
the Commission to obtain the concurrence of the Administrator in any site specific alternative which satisfies Commission requirements for the s
level of protection for public health, safety, a'nd the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards at uranium mill tailings sites.
As an example, the Commission need not seek concurrence of the Admini-strator in case-by-case determinations of alternative concentration limits and delisting of hazardous constituents for specific sites.
It should be understood that the proposed conforming regulations deal with the exercise of the Commission's responsibility and authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, solely as regards uranium mill tailings sites and have no broader connotation.
The Commission believes that licensee proposals for alternatives can be an important and effective way to help deal with the problems asso-ciated with implementing the new EPA standards. The Commission expects that it may require several years to have its conforming regulations fully in place..It expects to use the' flexibility provided by section 84 in the interim to consider and approve alternative proposals from licensees.
Section 84c. provides NRC sufficient authority to independently approve alternatives so long as the Commission can make the required determination."
VI.
SCOPE OF THIS PROPOSAL The relevant Federal legislation on uranium mill tailing: contains two mandates.
Sections 84a(2) and 275f(3) of the AEA require NRC to conform to the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192.
The rulemaking published October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852) responded to this mandate but only partially fulfills it since ground-water provisions of the EPA standards were not 15 s
[7590-01]
incorporated. The second mandate in section 84a(3) of the AEA is more general and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable with EPA's' requirements for management,of similar hazardous material under SWDA.
EPA. incorporated some of its SWDA permit-ting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but left to NRC discretion how to implement certain additional requirements to achieve comparability with SWDA.
Alternative approach.es for this rulemaking range from a reference to 40 CFR Part 192 requirements for ground water protection to development of comprehensive new regulations.
Three specific alternatives were considered for this rulemaking:
1.
Fulfill the conformance mandate by referencing in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, the ground-water standards in 40 CFR P' art'192.
~
Extensive guidance documentation would have to be prepared to clarify
+he requirements imposed by the referenced. standards in SWDA regula-tions. Development of discretionary regulations would be deferred.
2.
Fulfill the conformance mandate by inserting into 10 CFR Part 40 the clearly nondiscretionary ground-water provisions of the EPA stand-ard specifically referred to in 40 CFR Part 192, as well as selected and closely related referenced standards. This alternative would elminate the need to refer to two sets of regulations.
Implementation guidance would still be needed and developed, but the amount needed would be reduced. Development of discretionary regulations could also be deferred under this alternative.
16
[7590-01]
3.
Proceed with development of a new part that integrates NRC and EPA regulations, includes discretionary details, and responds to the second mandate for SWDA comparable requirements for conventional.
mills.
Alternative 2 was selected based on comments on the ANPRM, the state of the industry, and Commission judgment.
The current depressed state of the domestic uranium industry and projections by industry and Department of Energy (DOE) on the future state of the industry suggest that NRC should limit expenditure of resources for rulemaking applicable to licensing of new conventional mills. The major points leading the Commission to this conclusion are:
(1) poor market conditions, over production, and foreign competition have resulted in a large decrease in domestic uranium production, (2) slow recovery of tha industry is forecast but the timing and degree of recovery are uncertain, (3) forecasts indicate little new facility activity for at least five years,-
(4) solution (in situ) mining may be the most active technology in the near-term, and (5) NRC can reassess the need for more comprehensive rulemaking based on' industry and DOE analyses of market trends and licensing caseload forecast and experience.
(These five points are discussed in Revision 1 of " Overview of the State of the Uranium Industry For Rulemaking Purposes" dated December, 1985 which is available in the NRC's-Public Document Room.) The severity of the depressed state of the industry was emphasized by the latest 00E annual finding on industry viability. On September 26, 1985, the Secretary of Energy informed the President that the uranium industry was not viable.
17
[7590-01]
The poor outlook for domestic production means a corresponding down-turn in new facility licensing activity.
In the absence of license appli-cations for new conventional uranium mills, the regulatory focus.will be on interim stabilization, decommissioning, and reclamation of mill tailings sites no longer in operation.
In the application of the ground water pro-visions of 40 CFR Part 192 to existing sites, site specific decisions will predominate.
These site specific decisions would not likely benefit greatly from generic rulemaking.
Alternative 2 could also minimize use of NRC resources until EPA issues standards applicable to other mining and milling wastes.
Fut'ure EPA' standards.for these wastes might include prescriptive features that NRC would consider appropriate to apply to' mill-tailings.
Liner and corrective action technology for mining wastes can mature, and future rulemaking could draw on the experience resulting from site specific application of the general requirements already imposed.
The difficult climate for consensus because of divergent views and lack of data on risks and health effects related to hazardous constituents may diminish as EPA develops and issues additional quantitative standards. Although the potential for deferred rulemaking would still exist under Alternative 2, it would reduce the near-term uncertainty.
Further, a comparison of the EPA's SWDA regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 and existing NRC regulations indicates that the conformed NRC regulations would include all the major relevant regulatory principles in the SWDA rules.
The differences between the conformed NRC regulations and the EPA SWDA regula-tions would primarily be in the level of detail and specificity or in aspects that are not necessarily needed for mill tailings management.
Experience from site specific implementation can be used to identify areas where clarification 18
-wm,v v
vv r
=---w w
o
[7590-01]
or additional details might be needed in NRC's regulations or guidance documents.
The mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the AEA requires NRC to assure that byproduct material is managed in a manner that " conforms to general require-ments established by the Commission, with the concurrence of the Admini,
strator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable
'to requirements applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended." The mandate represents a continuing NRC responsibility to be sure that the overall uranium recovery regulatory framework is comparable to EPA rules for similar hazardous material. The Commission believes that the combination of conformed regulations, policy and guidance, and license conditions can adequately meet this mandate for the foreseeable future with coordination with EPA on generic policy and guidance.
Further, the Commission anticipates that EPA will address the important issue of protection of ground-water with respect to mineral ore processing wastes. The nonradioactive constituents in uranium mill process wastes appear to be more comparable to the hazards in such other ores than to the chemical process wastes to which the SWDA rules primarily apply.
i VII. COORDINATION WITH EPA The action proposed in this notice is undertaken pursuant to sections 84a(2) and 275f(3) of the AEA and reflects requirements already imposed by EPA, and already subject to implementation and enforcement by HRC under section 275d of the AEA. Therefore, this rulemaking does not require EPA concurrence.
19
[7590-01]
The Commission notes that EPA addressed the issue of EPA concurrence in its October 7, 1983 notice on 40 CFR Part 192 (see 48 FR 45942).
EPA referred to NRC's responsibility under UMTRCA to implement EPA's standards
~
and to be comparable to EPA requirements for similar hazardous materials.
EPA indicated that it expected to "... insure that NRC's regulations satisfy these [UMTRCA] admonitions through its concurrence role." Specific provisions of the SWDA standards were identified as incorporated into 40 CFR Part 192 and other provisions were listed by EPA as " relevant."
The listed " relevant" regulations include prescriptive general requirements for aspects _such as data collection and analysis for the various ground-water monitoring programs and site inspections.
EPA expected NRC to incorporate into its rules discretionary general requirements from the listed " relevant" regulations. Thus, EPA expected to concur in these general requirements. However, none of the general requirements from the listed " relevant" regulations are proposed for incorporation in this proposed rule.
For this reason NRC will continue to consult with EPA on generic SWDA-related matters not covered by this proposed rulemaking in order to ensure continuing conformance to the intent of section 84a(3) of UMTRCA.
VIII.
CONTENT OF THIS PROPOSAL The EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926)-included, by cross-reference, ground-water protection standards in 40 CFR Part 264.
Part 264 was promulgated by the EPA pursuant to authority provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which amended the SWDA.
Part 264 itself contains references to other EPA rules and a number of 20
[7590-01]
internal cross references.
Determining what provisions EPA actually imposed was thus not a completely straightforward exercise.
In deciding the precise language to incorporate, the Commission generally had, the following objectives in mind in developing these conforming regulations pursuant to sections 84a(2) and 275f(3):
1.
Preserve the traditional EPA and NRC roles in which EPA issues general standards and NRC conducts the detailed implementation and enforcement program.
2.
Incorporate only those imposed provisions where NRC has no legal discretion to. deviate on a generic basis.
3.
Provide maximum flexibility to implement the standards in guidance and site specific licensing decisions.
4.
Develop a NRC regulation that is self-contair.ed without references to EPA's SWDA regulations.
5.
Change EPA's language and add implementation features only where necessary to make the incorporated standards understandable in the uranium mill tailings context or to eliminate procedural aspects, guidance, explanations, and duplication.
6.
Merge the thorium and uranium standards and generally consolidate requirements by topic in Appendix A.
21
o
[7590-01]
7.
Reflect the Commission's position.that EPA site specific concurrences conflict with Commission authority and responsibilities.
Application of these objectives and a careful reading of the EPA standards resulted in the proposed modifications of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in its Introduction, and in Criteria'5, 6, and 7, as well as the proposed addition of a new Criterion 13.
These modifications conform the NRC rules to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 192 not addressed in the earlier conforming action.
The following specific sections of 40 CFR Part 264 which were promulgated on July 26, 1982, are incorporated in modified text form into Appendix A.
(Note that 40 CFR Part 192 incorporated SWDA rules as codified on January 1,1983. These sections were not amended in 1982 after promulgation.) EPA imposed these sections in its final standards published i
October 7, 1983 (48 FR 45942).
Subpart F 40 CFR 264.92 Ground water protection standard.
40 CFR 264.93 Hazardous constituents.
40 CFR 264.94 Concentration limits.
40 CFR 264.100 Corrective action program.
Subpart G 40 CFR 264.111 Closure performance standard.
Subpart K 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operating requirements for surface impoundments.
EPA also indicated that the following specific sections should be addressed by NRC in implementing the standards.
The Commission will address these sections of EPA's regulations in consultation with EPA, as noted in Section VII above, through guidance documents as needed.
22
o
[7590-01]
Subpart F 40 CFR 264.91 Required programs.
40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance.
40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period.
40 CFR 264.97 General ground-water monitoring requirements.
40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring program.
40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program.
Subpart G 40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and use of property.
Subpart K 40 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and inspection.
40 CFR 264.228 Closure and post-closure care.
The following narrative discusses-how the imposed provisions of the EPA standard are being incorporated into 10 CFR Part 40.
The Introduction to Appendix A to 10 CFR Fart 40 contains general information, concepts, and clarification of terminology. The proposed addition to the Introduction defines new terms used in the proposed addi-~
tions to Criteria 5, 6, and 7.
The definitions for aquifer, dike, existing portion, ground water, leachate, licensed site, liner, surface impoundment, and uppermost aquifer are essentially quoted from 40 CFR Part 192 and 40 CFR 264.10.
Definitions in 40 CFR Part 192 for closure,-closure plan, and disposal area were modified for clarity. Definitions for compliance period and point of compliance were developed from the intent of 40 CFR 264.95 and 264.96 coupled with the unique applicaton to licensing under VMTRCAc In the earlier conforming action, a paragraph noting the dual regulations applicable to ground-water protection was added at the 23
[7590-01]
beginning of Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
This paragraph was intended to clarify the regulatory situation pending additional rule-making by the Commission and is being revised to reflect the present action.
The EPA standards in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) and (2) establish primary and L
secondary ground-water protection standards for application during opera-tions and prior to the end of closure. The primary standard is essentially a design standard for surface impoundments used to manage mill tailings.
40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) requires design, construction, and installation of a surface impoundment in accordance with 40 CFR 264.221. The key element in
. impoundment design is a liner, but other asper
-of.the impoundment are also addressed. The specifics of the standara.are contained in referenced 40 CFR 264.221(a)-(d).
Paragraph (a) of $264.221 and 40 CFR 192.32(a) contain references to 40 CFR 264.228. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) states "... except that at sites where the annual precipitation falling on the impoundment and any drainage area contributing surface runoff to the impoundment is less than the annual evaporation from the impoundment, the requirements of $264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E) referenced in $264.221 do not apply..."
The Commission considers this reference to S264.228 to be clarifying implementation guidance and not binding regulations for impoundment design. The effect of the quoted text is to caution that at sites where evaporation exceeds influent moisture,
(
the final cover does not need a permeability less than or equal to that of l
the liner in the bottom of the impoundment. Thus it deals with impoundment l
closure rather than impoundment operation.
The standards for cover design l
in 40 CFR 192.32(b) prevail.
l References to 9264.228 in S264.221 provide options on liner design based on whether the liner will be removed at closure or not. Thus, they 24 I
l
o
[7590-01]
are essential to state completely the design standard and are paraphrased in the proposed modifications.
Proposed paragraphs 5A(1)-(5) of Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 correspond to 40 CFR 264.221(a)-(d) with appropriate procedural and administrative changes.
A secondary ground water protection standard is provided by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) to address leakage from impoundments. As worded, the secondary standard is not limited to leakage from impoundments so it applies to management of any byproduct materials whether they exist within an impoundment or not. The secondary standard establishes a procedure for limiting releases of hazardous constituents from byproduct materials to safe levels by incorporating 40 CFR 264.92-264.94. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(i) and (ii) supplement 40 CFR 264.92-264.94 for uranium byproduct materials.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) adds the elements molybdenum and uranium to the list of hazardous constituents.
Paragraph (a)(2)(fi) adds radioactivity limits to Table 1 of 40 CFR 264.94. 40 CFR 192.41(a)-(c) provide for equivalent supplements for thorium when thorium byproduct materials are involved.
Paragraphs SB(1)-(6) proposed as additions to Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 correspond to 40 CFR 264.92-264.94.
Proposed paragraph SC to Criterion 5 contains Table 1 of $264.94 with the supplemental radioactiv-ity limits added.
Proposed new Criterion 11 to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 lists the hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 referenced in $264.93 with molybdenum, uranium, thorium and radium-126 and radium-228 l
added. Criterion 13 also explains that gross alpha activity will be treated as a hazardous constituent. The Commission assumes that the addition of l
25
O
[7590-01]
limits for radium-226 and radium-228'and gross alpha activity (see 40 CFR 4
j 192.32(a)(2)(ii)) to Table 1 also meant that they should be treated as haz-ardous constituents. Such treatment is procedurally required to ' apply the limits.
In drafting paragraphs 5B(1)-(6) of the _ proposed revisions to Appen-dix A to 10 CFR Part 40, the Commission emphasized the site specific decisions called for in the secondary standard. The principal feature of the secondary standard not incorporated is the modification of-the scheme by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v). Paragraph (a)(2)(iv)~of 40 CFR 192.32 states that "The regulatory agency may establish alternate concentration limits...provided that, after considering practicable corrective corrective actions, these limits are as low as reasonably achievable and...the standards of 5 264.94(a)-are satisfied at all points at a g. eater distance than 500 meters from the edge of the disposal area and/or outside the site boundary." S192.32(a)(2)(iv) was added solely for the purpose of allowing independent NRC action up to 500 meters or the site boundary. Because the i
Commission believes that EPA exceeded its authority in so limiting NRC action, the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 40 do not include S192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v). However, the Commission's as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) policy remains in effect for these decisions without the terms of S192.32(a)(2)(iv). To emphasize its continued commitment to the policy, it is repeated in the proposed modifications. Performing practicable corrective 3
j actions would be a normal part of applying the ALARA principle.
1' The Commission considers this issue a procedural one, rather than a matter of health and safety or environmental protection, because 40 CFR 264.93 and 264.94 are~ included in the proposed changes. These sections include the required finding of no significant present or potential hazard 2
26 1
I 4
o
[7590-01]
1 and the listed factors to be considered. The proposed modifications clearly and explicitly limit NRC to site-specific decisions.
NRC and EPA staff agreement on implementing guidance should provide a practical method of resolving this procedural aspect of 40 CFR Part 192.
EPA and NRC staff have been working together on drafts of alternate concentration limit methodologies. Work on the methodologies is proceeding in parallel with this rulemaking action and should be completed before final rule changes are in place.
The alternate concentration limit determinations are expected to be an integral part of implementing the EPA standard, particularly at existing -
sites.
The Commission does not foresee the need to use the provision to delist detected hazardous constituents as provided in proposed paragraph SB(3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
The flexibility in the EPA standard as i
reflected in proposed paragraph 5B(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 should accommodate anticioated licensing needs.
If this does not prove to be the case, similar development of mutually acceptable guidance could be pursued.
The requirements for detection monitoring programs in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iii) are incorporated into the expanded monitoring requirements in the proposed addition to Criterion 7 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
The proposed modifications to Criterion 7 also include other monitoring and information requirements needed to comply with the secondary ground-water protection standards.
They emphasize the purpose or objective of the programs and encourage the use of existing programs.
40 CFR 192.33 cross-references the requirement for a corrective action program as described in 40 CFR 264.100. The corrective action program is a key part of the secondary ground-water protection standard because it addresses the problem of how to deal with ground-water contamination that 27
[7590-01]
exceeds the established limits.
Paragraph 50 of Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 reflects the requirement for corrective action, the purpose of the program, and the required type of action to be considered as it is outlined in 40 CFR 264.100.
The proposed paragraph 50 of Appen-dix A to 10 CFR Part 40 also includes the 18 month time limit imposed by 40 CFR 192.33.for corrective action programs.
The 40 CFR 264.100 require-ment for monitoring the effectiveness of the corrective action program is included in the proposed modifications to Criterion 7 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
Procedural aspects of 40 CFR 264.100 were simplified for consistency with NRC licensing practices under UMTRCA.
Commission prior approval of the corrective action programs was added to assure that the licensee does not implement an expensive or irreversible program that the Commission would find unacceptable.
Flexibility to allow action prior to full review and approval by the Commission was included to cover the unlikely event that immediate action was required. The proposed requirements are intended to provide that any corrective action program will be completed by the owner / operator prior to license termination and transfer of the site to a government agency for long-term care.
The proposed additions to Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 are designated as paragraphs SA through SD to facilitate referencing.
For consistency and clarity, the remaining paragraphs of Criterion 5 are now being designated as SE through 5H.
There are no changes to the existing text other *.han a two word change in SE(4).
"Tox'ic substances" is changed to " hazardous constituents" for consistency.
Section 40 CFR 192.32(b) prescribes standards for application after the closure period to be used to design and develop closure plans.
The 28
[7590-01]
closure requirements applicable to radiological hazards were incorporated into Criterion 6 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in the earlier conforming action. The closure requirements applicable to nonradiological hazards are established in 40 CFR 192.32(b) by requiring compliance with 40 CFR 264.111. The proposed addition to Criterion 6 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 adds the closure performance standard in 40 CFR 264.111.
IX.
IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND REGULATORY ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS A.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact The Commission has determined under NEPA and the Commission's regula-tions in 10 CFR Part 51 that NRC's incorporation of the EPA standards as proposed in this action would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The significant Federal action was the promulgation by EPA of its regulations on September 30, 1983.
In proposing these additional modifications to its regulations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, the Commission intends to complete the action to conform them to the EPA standards. The purpose of these changes is to clarify previously existing language in promulgated EPA standards and incorporate mandatory requirements into NRC's regulations. The action proposed here by the Commission is a consequence of previous actions taken by the Congress and the EPA, and is legally required by section 275f(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Commission action in this case is essentially nondiscretionary in nature, and EPA is viewed as the lead agency.
For purposes of environmental 29
o
[7590-01]
analysis, this action rests upon existing environmental and other impact evaluations prepared by EPA in the following documents:
(1) " Final Envi-ronmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 192)," Volumes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September 1983,1 (2) " Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites,"
EPA 520/1-83-010, September 1983, and (3) Supplementary Information, Interim Final Rulemaking for 40 CFR Parts 122, 260, 264 and 265, " Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; and EPA Administered Permit Programs," published July'26, 1982 (47 FR 32274).
NRC also prepared an overview of the potential actions that might he required of NRC and Agreement state licensees by the EPA standards entitled, " Summary of the Waste Management Programs at Uranium Recovery Facilities as They Relate to the 40 CFR Part 192 Standards," NUREG/CR-4403.2 The Commission has prepared the following overview and update of the impacts on the environment and uranium and thorium milling industry asso-ciated with the ground-water protection standards proposed for incorporation.
Over 20 additional references were used in preparing the overview and update.
1 Single copies of the Final Environmental Impact and the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as available, may be obtained from the Program Management Office (ANR-458), Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (703) 557-9351. A copy of each document is also available for inspection and/or copying in NRC's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555.
2 Copies of NUREG/CR-4403, NUREG/BR-0058, and NUREG 0706 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service,~U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20555.
30
[7590-01]
A list is available in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The following dis-cussion is consistent with the content and format guidance for a Regulatory Analysis (NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 1, May 1984).2 The following discussion addresses in general terms the economic and other factors that would be addressed in a comprehensive Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if one was required by this action to meet the requirements of the Regulatory Flexi-bility Act.
(As indicated in the discussion under " Regulatory Flexibility Certification," a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.) The summary information is not intended to be a strict cost / benefit analysis or a technical justification for the standards.
It does, however, gener-ally relate economic cost to the benefit expected from compliance to the standard. The summary information should also help the reader more fully understand the nature and potential impacts of the proposed action.
Statement of the Problem - The earlier discussion outlined the legislative mandate for this rulemaking.
Objectives - The proposed changes are intended to conform NRC's regulations to the ground-water standards imposed by EPA for the protec-tion of the environment in managing uranium and thorium byproduct wastes.
Alternatives - The earlier discussion under " Scope of this Proposal" outlined the three alternative scopes of rulemaking considered. The no action alternative was rejected because it was inconsistent with law.
Independent development of new regulations to replace existing NRC and EPA regulatiors was rejected in response to comments on the first step conforming action published October 16, 1985. As emphasized in this earlier rulemaking, the Commission views its legal options to include approval of site specific alternatives to both NRC and EPA regulations.
31 l
[7590-01]
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged by additions to the Introduc-tion of Appendix A.
In contrast, the Commission does not view its legal options to include generic alternatives to the standards proposed for incorporation by this action.
B.
Costs and Benefits of the Modifications.
As just noted, the Commission considers only site specific alternative standards to those proposed for incorporation to be within its discretion.
Thus a discussion of the costs and benefits of alternative standards is inappropriate. The following discussion is therefore limited to an overview of the costs and benefits of the six major features of the EPA standards being incorporated.
The features are' (1) synthetic liners, (2) alternatives to synthetic liners, (3) ground water monitoring, (4) alternate concentration limits, (5) closure, and (6) corrective actions for ground-water contamination.
1.
Synthetic Liners As provided in Criterion SA(1), liners for tailings surface impoundments must be designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundments during the active life of the facility. As a practical matter, this provision requires installation of synthetic liners to mitigate migration of hazardous constituents from the tailings from all new and expanded impoundments.
In 1980, the NRC staff concluded that seepage control is the most effective approach for reducing potential ground-water contamination.
Seepage control actions relevant to Criterion 5(A)1 would include installation of synthetic liners such as flexible polymeric membrane, plastic, or rubber liners.
32
[7590-01]
Synthetic liners are a state-of-the-art component of uranium tailings impoundments to minimize ground-water contamination caused by leakage from tailings impoundments.
Synthetic liners that are properly designed and installed are more effective than other types of liners in preventing-significant ground water contamination from active tailings impoundments.
Persons living near uranium processing sites may benefit directly from the preservation of the quality of ground water and surface water.
The benefits of ground-water protection cannot be generically assessed, however, because these benefits are determined by highly site-specific factors.
Since 1977, NRC has required licensees to construct new urani.um tailings impoundments using either synthetic or engineered clay liners.
The require-ment to install synthetic liners in new or existing tailings impoundments will significantly increase the cost of tailings disposal compared with costs incurred at ura'ium mills constructed before 1977. Accuracies of n
cost, estimates for liners at future sites are inherently limited by site-specific factors that affect liner costs, including liner type and characteristi,cs, impoundment design, impoundment size, time of installa-tion, and location of the processing facility.
Based on cost evaluations described in NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (GEIS NUREG-0706)2 and this updated analysis, installation of synthetic liners is expected to account for 1 to 2 percent of the value of uranium produced at a typical uranium mill.
(See Table 1 at the end of this sec-tion.) The value of uranium was estimated by assuming that the mill oper-ates for 15 years, an annual yellowcake production of 580 metric tonnes (MT), and a fixed market price for yellowcake 'of $44,100 per MT ($20 per pound, 1985 dollars).
33
[7590-01]
-The average size of existing uranium tailings impoundments or groups of impoundments in the United States is approximately 70 hectares (175 acres).
Based on unit costs of synthetic liners installed at other waste disposal sites in the United States, the cost of synthetic liner installation-in an average-size impoundment would be expected to range from $4.2 to $10.4 million (1985 dollars). Unit costs for liners installed prior to 1985
-were escalated to 1985 costs'in proportion to increases in const'ruction price indexes.
Table 1 compares estimated costs for synthetic liner instal-lation with costs of other ground-water protection measures based on a sim-plified site model. These cost estimates may differ from actual costs based on site-specific factors including the actual size and number of impound-ment; used.
2.
Alternatives to Synthetic Liners As an alternative to synthetic liner installation, Criterion SA(1)'
provides licensees and applicants with flexibility to construct storage impoundments for uranium tailings, provided that tailings constituents do not migrate into subsurface soils, geologic media, ground water, or surface water during the active life of the facility. The licensee or applicant would be required during closure of the facility to remove or decontaminate all waste residues (e.g., tailings), contaminated impoundment components (e.g., liners, embankments), contaminated soils and geologic media, and contaminated structures and equipment.
In contrast, relocation of the tailings would generally not be required for disposal impoundments con-structed with synthetic liners.
The use of tailing impoundments for storage rather than disposal is not considered economically viable at conventional mills because of the 34
(7590-01]
high costs of removing, decontaminating, and disposing large volumes of tailings and contaminated wastes. This alternative also involves costs for developing and constructing chemically-treated or admixed liners that will prevent waste migration through the liner into soils, geologic media, ground water, and surface water. As seen in Table 1, the estimated cost for excavating and hauling tailings to a nearby disposal site significantly exceeds the cost of synthetic liner installation. Use of impoundments for tailings storage appears even less likely considering additional costs for the alternative including disposal site preparation costs; design, testing, and installation costs for liners; and costs for dewatering the tailings so they can be relocated to a disposal site.
Criterion SA(3) provides the applicant or licensee with an opportunity for another exemption from the synthetic liner requirement if the applicant t
or licensee can demonstrate to the Commission that a combination of design, operation, and site characteristics prevents migration of hazardous constituents into ground water or surface water at any future time. This demonstration should consider such factors as the nature and quantity of wastes, alternate design features and operation practices, hydrogeologic site characteristics, and.other factors that could influence the quality of leachate and mobility of hazardous constituents.
Liners made of clay or other natural materials may be an integral part of the design considerations under the flexibility provided by paragraph SA(3).
Costs incurred in successfully demonstrating the exemption will vary based on the relative importance and type of site characteristics, design features, and operation practices.
For example, a successful demonstration based primarily on site characteristics may only require additional collection of site characterization information to supplement information 35 l
o
[7590-01]
contained in environmental assessments and licensing evaluations pursuant to Criterion SG(2).
The incremental cost in this case would be limitad to the additional costs of collecting more-detailed hydrogeologic information (e.g., aquifer tests analyses, ground-water monitoring results, stratigraphic data).
In contrast,.a demonstration may be based primarily on appropriate operational practices such as drying the tailings with cyclones or belt filters.
The cost of this alternative would be the capital costs of necessary equipment and structures, as well as the maintenance and opera-tional costs associated with the equipment and structures. The costs of clay, admixed, or asphalt liners are estimated in Table 1.
Because of the diversity of potential alternatives to synthetic liner installation, the costs of the alternatives are expected to vary from less than to greater than the costs of synthetic liners as described in Table 1.
The potential benefits gained from the exemption are essentially equivalent to potential benefits associated with synthetic liner installation, namely protection of ground water and surface water quality.
This benefit may be realized by humans living near uranium processing facilities and the surrounding environment. The flexibility could also allow more cost-effective options. As a potential secondary benefit of the liner exemption, Criterion SA(3) may stimulate effective application of new control and operation technologies for environmental protection at uranium processing facilities. Successful applications could benefit other programs for radiological and non-radiological waste management.
3.
Ground-water Monitoring-Criterion 7A requires implementation of ground-water monitoring pro-grams and analysis of ground-water monitoring data. These programs directly 36
O 8
[7590-01]
support the secondary ground-water protection standard of phased monitoring and corrective actions based on monitoring results.
The secondary standard and monitoring requirements apply to all impoundments, not just new or expanded ones. Most existing monitoring programs at NRC licensed uranium processing sites needed only minor modifications to serve as detection monitoring for leakage of hazardous constituents from the impoundments.
However, the programs may need to be upgraded to comply with the subsequent requirements for providing data to set standards and demonstrating compli-ance with site-specific ground-water protection standards and the effec-tiveness of corrective actions.
For example, licensees may need to install new wells at sites where existing monitoring wells are inadequate to evaluate all aspects of a corrective action program and they may need to expand monitoring programs to sample for,more constituents.
The costs of upgrading existing ground-water monitoring programs at uranium processing sites will be affected by site-specific factors such as the adequacy of existing monitoring wells, extent of ground-water contamination, and hydrogeologic site characteristics.
These costs will be incremental to costs for ground-water monitoring at existing sites for compliance with licensing conditions and preparation of environmental assessments. Ground water monitoring costs may also be affected by i
site-specific decisions such as pursuing an exemption to the synthetic liner requirement, requesting alternate concentration limits, or selecting corrective actions for groundwater contamination.
Based on unit costs for monitoring wells in the United States, the initial cost for installing 30 shallow (50-foot deep) wells at a site ranges from about $43,000 to i
$105,000 (1985). Sampling these wells semi-annually and analyzing samples
(
for major and minor ions, inorganic hazardous constituents, radionuclides, 37 l
i
[7590-01]
and organic indicator parameters would be expected to range from $40,000 to $140,000 per year (1985). Annual costs for routine maintenance of monitoring wells amounts to a small fraction (e.g., 1 to 2%) of the initial capital expense.
In comparison with the costs of other ground-water protection measures, the total cost of ground-water monitoring is relatively small for the new model mill and the associated assumptions on time periods.
4 Alternate Concentration Limits Today's proposed amendments provide licenseas with flexibility in developing site-specific ground-water protection standards that incorporate alternate concentration limits in lieu'of background concentration limits or the limits listed in Criterion SC.
The Commission may establish alternate concentration limits provided that a h'azardous constituent does not pose a present or potential hazard to humans or the environment as long as its concentration does not exceed this alternate limit at the point of compliance.
The costs associated with applications for alternate concentration limits will vary based on site-specific factors that deter".ine information needs for the demonstration.
Information needed to support applications for alternate limits would draw heavily on information contained in environ-mental reports and license applications.
Because detailed site information is an existing requirment (see Criterion SG), justifications for alternate l
concentration limits should only need to be supplemented with information about adverse effects of hazardous constituents on humans and the environment based on reputable literature. The cost of assembling this information is expected to be minimal compared with costs for other ground-water protection actions such as liner and cover installation or ground-water monitoring.
38
_= -
[7590-01]
Costs for assessing practicable corrective actions and other aspects of showing that proposed alternate concentration limits are ALARA would be very site specific but should also be small compared to other costs.
9 5.
Closure The proposed addition to-Criterion 6 establishes the objectives for dealing with nonradiological hazards during closure. The objectives are generally the same as those already in place for radiological hazards.
Closure design will also be impacted by the proposed modifications to Criterion 5.
For example, Criterion 5 increases the likelihood t' hat syn-thetic liners will be used at all future sites.
The addition to Criterion 6 also heightens concern over long term infiltration and mobilization of waste components.
The arid western environmental characteristics of most processing sites in combination with effective earthen covers for radon control and erosion protection should generally be sufficient to minimize long-term infiltration into stabilized impoundments. However, some tailings disposal impoundments in humid climates with synthetic liners may require more complicated cover designs and installations to prevent detrimental accumulation of water in the stabilized impoundment after closure (i.e.,
bathtub effect).
For example, a site in a humid climate may require a composite cover to meet both the radiological and nonradiological objectives.
The composite cover might include compacted silt to control radon diffusion and a bituminous concrete surface seal to minimize infiltration and mobiliza-i tion of nonradiological constituents.
The cost of.a bituminous concrete seal for an average-size impoundment would be expected to range from $1.3 to $1.7 million (1985). As with other 39
.. _. ~.,,,, _ _ _ _
m,
O O
[7590-01]
large scale construction projects, the costs of seals and other closure measures may vary considerably based on site-specific factors such as type and characteristics of the seal, Over design, size of cover, location of the processing site, and the effectiveness of tailings stabilization and dewatering prior to impoundment closure.
The cost of synthetic, admixed, or concrete cover seals would be expected to be comparable to the cost of synthetic liners beneath tailings impoundments.
6.
Corrective Actions for Ground-water Contamination In recognition ~ of potential failures of impoundment liners and covers, today's proposed amendments provide for a secondary ground-water protection standard involving a phased approach for ground-water monitoring and i
corrective action.
Corrective actions may be required to restore ground water to its background quality to avoid adverse effects on humans and the environment.
The objective of corrective action programs is to return hazardous constituents in the uppermost aquifer to their respective concen-tration limits at the point of compliance. Corrective action may involve eliminating the source of ground-water contamination by either relocating the tailings to a suitable disposal site or treating them in place to limit the mobility and release of hazardous constituents-In addition, the cor-rective action program may also involve treating ground water between the point of compliance and the site boundary.
Licensees have been operating programs to mitigate ground-water contamination at uranium mills for several years. The corrective action programs required in today's ame'.dments may substantially increase the
~
1 costs associated with ground water protection at uranium processing 40
[7590-01]
facilities by requiring expansion of existing mitigation programs or development of new corrective action programs. Accuracies of cost estimates for corrective action programs are inherently limited by site-specific factors such as the extent and type of contamination, volume of tailings, hydraulic and geochemical properties of the hydrogeologic system, impoundment design, and other factors that affect the technical feasibility, practicality, timing, and extent of corrective actions for ground-water contamination.
Table 1 compares relative costs of ground-water protection actions, including components of corrective action programs such as slurry trench installation, grouting, drain and well installation and operation, relocation of tailings, and aquifer restoration.
(Note that the listed actions include measures that have not been successfully demonstrated at existing NRC licensed tailings sites but they represent possible options.)
The costs of component actions would be summed to develop cust estimates of integrated corrective action programs. An example of an integrated corrective action program might include installation of a bentonite slurry wall upgradient of a contaminated ground-water' plume, installation and operation of injection and withdrawal wells for aquifer restoration, and construction and operation of a water treatment facility to improve the quality of water removed from the contaminated aquifer. The corrective action program might also include eahanced or early dewatering of tailings or modifying the planned cover to add sealing materials.
In addition to I
activities directly related to design a'nd implementation of the corrective l
action programs, the program also incurs costs for detailed ground-water monitoring and evaluation of monitoring data to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective action programs. The costs of corrective actions may account for a significant proportion (e.g., 20% for the model mill in Table 1) of 41 b
~*
[7590-01]
TABLE 1.
COST COMPARIS0N FOR GROUND-WATER PROTECTION ACTIONS AT A MODEL CONVENTIONAL MILL
- Cost Range-Percentage of Type of Action (millions 1985 dollars)
Product Value Synthetic Liners 4.2 to 10.4 1.1 to 2.7 Clay, Admixed, and 1.4 to 8.0 0.4 to 2.1' Asphalt Liners Slurry Trench 4.2 to 7.2 1.1 to 1.9 Grout Curtain 16.6 to 33.3 4.3 to 8.7 Bituminous Concrete Cover 1.3 to 1.7 0.3 to 0.4 Ground-water Drains 1.8 to 2.2 0.5 to 0.6 (w/o treatment)
Withdrawal Wells 0.5 to 0.7 0.1 to 0.2 (w/o treatment)
Withdrawal Wells 7.3 to 33.0 1.9 to 8.6 (with treatment)
Relocation of 24.5 to 53.1 6.4 to 13.8 Tailings a
Assumes the following site model:
70 hectare (175 acres) tailings impound-ment in which tailings have been deposited to a thickness of 9 meters; con-taminated ground-water plume extends from the upgradient side of impoundment to 500 meters laterally downgradient of the downgradient edge of the impound-ment; unidirectional ground-water flow field;- aquifer is 15 meters thick, composed of silty sand, and has a porosity of 20%; uranium mill produces yellowcake for 15 years with an annual production rate of 580 MT at a fixed t
market price of $44100 per MT; tailings are relocated to a disposal site (uncosted) within 9 kilometers of the original impoundment.
I I
Note: Costs for uranium recovery facilities other than conventional mills (e.g., in situ evaporation ponds, heap leaching impoundments) would be considerably less due to the much smaller scale.
The ponds or impoundments associated with these activities are typically only about a half hectare (1 acre) in size although in situ evaporation ponds for commercial scale operations might be larger {e.g. 5-10 acres in size). Actions taken at these facilities would be expected to be similar in purpose and design to those implemented at uranium mills.
l l
42 l
1
[7590-01]
s 4
tne value of yellowcake produced depending on the type and extent of correc-tive actions.
C.
Impacts on Other Requirements and Persons NRC and Licensee Staffing - The major impacts of the selected alternative en NRC programs is the resource savings of the reduced rule-t making scope and the reduced need to develop or modify existing guidance documents.
Because the EPA standards are already imposed, the rulemaking itself has no direct effect on licensing actions.
Licensees will probably have to increase staff and/or use consultants to some degree to comply with the ground-water protection standards in interim and final reclamation pro-grams.
The depressed state of the industry has resulted in significant licensee staff reductions and uncertainties. Thus, it is difficult to assess the impact of the rulemaking itself on the licensees' fluid staffing situation.
Agreement States - There are four Agreement States regulating uranium milling and mill' tailings that will be impacted 'by the proposed ground water protection regulations:
Texas, New Mexico (the Governor of New Mexico has requested that the NRC reassert its authority over uranium milling and mill tailings by letter dated March 18, 1986), Colorado, and Washington.
Fol-lowing promulgation of final rules by the Commission, each of the four States will need to amend their uranium milling regulations so that the State's regulatory program for uranium mills remains equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than, the NRC's regulatory program for uranium milling. However, since the States are already required by law to implement and enforce the EPA standards to which this rulemaking would conform NRC regulations, there should be minimal impact.
43
o
[7590-01]
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) With EPA - Negotiations on a MOU with EPA were initiated soon after the EPA standards were issued in October of 1983 to facilitate NRC implementation of the standards, to reduce inconsistencies, and to clarify responsibilities.
Several draft MOU's have been discussed with EPA since t'at time. Many of the original issues h
which were to be addressed by the MOU have been resolved and the main issue that is left to be addressed is how NRC will establish alternate concentration limits and to what extent EPA will be involved in those deci-sions. Work on the MOU was deferred by mutual consent in late 1984 pending development of a generic methodology by NRC and EPA staff for evaluating alternate concentration limits. At this writing, the effort to develop a generic methodology is still underway.* When the methodology is completed, NRC and EPA may use an MOU to establish procedures for its application.
It is also possible that after NRC's uranium mill tailings regulations. are issued, other agreements with EPA might be necessary requiring the develop-ment of an MOU with a different focus than has been discussed in the past.
Constraints - Unless court action sets the EPA standards aside, NRC is obligated to conform its rules and implement and enforce the EPA stand-ards. A United States Court of Appeals has upheld the EPA standards proposed for inclusion in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
See, American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1985).
Decision Rationale - The basis for deciding the scope of rulemaking has been discussed elsewhere. The rationale for truncating the EPA refer-enced standards was discussed under " Content of This Proposal."
44
6
[7590-01]
D.
Implementation The four Agreement States regulating uranium mill operations have some form of operational criteria and objectives which are intended to provide ground-water protection.
There are differences between 40 CFR Part 192 and the State programs for ground-water protection, particularly in the areas of point of compliance measurements, selected indicator parameters and application of the principle of nondegradation. Other mitigating actions have been noted which have been sanctioned by the Agreement States, e.g., relocation of tailings by Cotter Corporation in Colorado and pumpback systems by mills in New Mexico. Additionally four mills (2 in Colorado and 2 in New Mexico) have been added to the Superfund National Priority listing as.a back-up for achieving compliance with.40 CFR Part 192 and 10 CFR Part 40.
Some form of ground-water monitoring is under way by the mills in the Agreement States. When the NRC issues its final regulation on this topic, we expect the States to refine their requirements to be equivalent to the NRC regulation to the extent practicable, or'more stringent.
In general, the States are attempting to meet the intent of 40 CFR Part 192 to the best of their abilities.
NRC has taken a number of steps to inform its licensees about the EPA standards and to implement and enforce the standards. On February 2, 1984, NRC issued a letter to NRC licensees which provided guidance on how all aspects of the standards would be implemented and reminded licensees that the standards were in effect.
A letter to licensees dated July 10, 1984,
~
set forth the NRC criteria for an acceptable detection monitoring program and provided the results of a preliminary review of existing ground-water monitoring programs relative to these criteria.
Staff developed a technical position on detection monitoring as part of the process of preparing and 45
[7590-01]
issuing license amendments on detection monitoring. Between April 22 and May 7, 1985, NRC issued amendments to its milling licensees not in the process of decommissioning.
Subsequent to the issuance of the site-spec,ific
. license amendments, 11 of the 13 licensees requested hearing's.
The amend-ments were withdrawn on June 26, 1985 and replaced by immediately effective orders on July 19, 1985. As noted in a Federal Register notice dated November 7, 1985 (50 FR 46370), licensees also requested hearings on the orders and the immediate effectiveness of the orders was rescinded. The notice resulted in an additional request for hearing from the Environmental Defense Fund.
The requests for hearings are being processed in accordance with usual agency procedures. NRC has also taken enforcement action for violation of.the liner requirement in the standard. The depressed state of the industry has minimized the need to implement certain aspects of the ground-water protection standards.
For example, licensees do not.need new impoundments when they are not operating.
NRC will continue to implement and enforce the standards on a site specific basis in the interim while this rulemaking is pending.
The public should also note that for several years prior to promulga-tion of the EPA standards, NRC has been implementing programs to protect ground-water quality at NRC-licensed facilities. All new impoundments licensed by NRC since 1977 have been lined with either synthetic or natural materials. All facilities have in place ground-water monitoring systems i
designed to locate and quantify seepage from the impoundments. Approxi-mately three-fourths of the facilities have remedial or mitigative programs in place to intercept and return contaminated ground water to the impoundments.
Enhanced water evaporation systems are also used at four facilities.
46
[7590-01]
The EPA /NRC cooperative efforts on generic methodologies for deter-mining acceptable alternate concentration limits were discussed earlier under " Content of this Proposal." Any decisions needed before mutually acceptable methodologies are in place will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Licensing decisions will be made in accordance with the health and safety and environmental standards imposed by the EPA standard as reflected in the proposed modifications in this present action, and consistent with appropriate SWDA regulations.
There are several NRC Regulatory Guides that will be impacted by the proposed rulemaking.
Oraft Regulatory Guide MS-146 43 and the corresponding Branch Position WM-81014, descrioe acceptable engineering practices for the design, installation, and inspection of seepage control liners.
Major revision will be required in these two guidance documents.
Regulatory Guide 3.55 addresses the content of license applications for uranium mills.
Regulatory Guide 4.145 is concerned with environmental monitoring at uranium mills. Minor revision of Regulatory Guides 3.5 and 4.14 may be necessary.
3 Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for single copies of draft guides or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies ~of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention, Director, Division of Technical Informa-tion and Document Control.
4 Copies of WM-8101 and WM-8102 may be obtained from the Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 427-4312.
5 Regulatory Guides are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC Copies of active guides may be purchased at the current Government Printing Office price.
A subscription service for future guides in specific divisions is available through the Government Printing Office.
Information on the subscription service and current prices may be obtained by writing to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, I
DC 20013-7082.
47
[7590-01]
Several other guides address ground water (e.g., " Ground-water Monitoring in Uranium In Situ Solution Mines" (WM-8102)4 but were found not to be impacted by the proposed _rulemaking. As ' implementation experience is gained, additional regulatory documents on ground-water matters may be prepared. No speci.fic needs have been identified at this time other than the alternate concentration methodology discussed previously.
E.
Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed NRC Requirements 10 CFR Part 40 - The modifications proposed by this action would complete the mandate to conform NRC rules to the EPA standards.
The modifications have been integrated into Appendix A of Part 40 to consolidate topics to the extent practicable.
SWDA Comparable Changes - The mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the AEA on comparability to-SWDA requirements has been addressed previously.
The Commission's regulations and licensing requirements will cover most basic elements of the SWOA regulations when the present action is completed.
The Commission does not consider detailed regulations necessary to accom-plish the AEA mandate at this time. The Commission will centinue to monitor DOE and indJstry assessments of the state of the industry, evolu-tion of the technologies associated with the SWDA regulations, NRC and State licensing experience, and EPA ground water policy development and rulemaking for mining and similar wastes. The Commission will also continue to consult with EPA concerning comparability of its program to the SWDA requirements. Assuming no major difficulties develop, and based on current assessments of the state of the industry, the need for addi-tional rulemaking to accommodate applications for new mills would probably be at least 5 years away. None of the other factors to be monitored suggest the need for Commission rulemaking any sooner.
48
0
[7590-01]
Petition for Rulemaking~ - On November 30, 1982, the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission published in the Federal Register (47 FR 53889) a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Union Carcice Corporation (PRM-40-24). The petitioner requests that the NRC amend Criteria 1, 5, 6, and 10 of 10 CFR 40 Appendix A.
The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the' selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the ground water, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on the mill operator to cover the costs of long term surveillance. The petitioner believes that its suggested changes would significantly reduce compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities and would continue to adequately protect the public health, safety and the environment.
The NRC is required by law to conform its uranium mill tailings regulations to the final standards issued by the EPA for uranium and thorium mill tailings. The NRC has chosen to meet this mandate in two rulemaking proceedings that set out amendments to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. The final rule published October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852), com-pleted the first rulemaking action. That final rule revised Appendix A to l
10 CFR Part 40 in order to conform these provisions to EPA's standards for all EPA requirements except those relating to ground water protection.
This proposed rule, which is part of the second rulemaking proceeding, proposes the amendments to Appendix A to Part 40 the NRC believes neces-sary to incorporate EPA's ground-water protection requirements into its regulations. Most of the issues raised by the petitioner would amend par-tions of Appendix A to Part 40 affected by these rulemaking actions designed to conform NRC regulations to EPA standards.
49
. ~.
l
[7590-01]
The amendments suggested by the petitioner for Criterion 5 concern ground-water issues which are addressed in detail in this proposed rule.
The petitioner requested that Criterion 5 be amended to give consideration to the use, characteristics, size, and availability of ground water for j
potable use in determining potentially deleterious impacts of tailings
.leachate to human health. Although these factors are addressed in this proposed rule, the scope of the proposed amendments to Criterion 5 is limited to those actions needed to comply with the mandate to conform these regulations to EPA standards.
The petitioner's suggested amendments to Criteria 1 and 6 concern issues which the NRC addressed in the final rule published October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852).
In Criterion 1, the petitioner requested that tailings be isolated from the environment during..." operations and for a period of 100-200 years thereafter without active maintenance..."
rather than for " thousands of years" as originally set out in Appendix A i
to Part 40.
In Criterion 6, the petitioner requested that remedial action be cost-effective and based on a realistic assessment of the health hazard to the public concerning earth cover thickness and the surface exhalation of radon. Although the October 16, 1985 final rule amended Criteria 1 and 6 extensively, the scope of those amendments was 4
j limited to the actions needed to conform these provisions to EPA's 1
requirements.
1 The petitioner suggested that Criterion 10 be amended so that a 2% annual real interest rate rather than the current 1% annual real interest rate on collected funds be imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance. The petitioner believes that 4
the 2% annual real interest rate is a more accurate percentage spread 1
I 50
[7590-01]
are owned by large corporations. One mill is partly-owned by a company that could qualify as a small business, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's generic small entity definition of less than 3.5 million dollars in annual receipts. However, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a small business is one that is independently owned and operated. Because this mill is not independently owned, it does not qualify as a small entity.
XII.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 40 Government contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, and Uranium.
XIII.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganiza-tion Act'of 1974, as amenced, 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, the NRC is proposing the follow-ing amendmerts to 10 CFR Part 40.
PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL 1.
The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat.
932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 atat. 444, 52
[7590-01]
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095,.2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat.
688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Sec. 275, 92 Stat.
3021, as amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273); SS 40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and SS 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (4),
40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
Appendix A to Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
2.
Introduction to Appendix A is amended by adding the following text at the end of the
Introduction:
Introduction.***
The following definitions apply to the specified terms as used in this Appendix:
53
[7590-01].
" Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells or springs.
" Closure" means the activities following operations to decontaminate and decommission the buildings and site used to produce byproduct materials and reclaim the tailings and/or waste disposal area.
" Closure plan" means the Commission approved plan to accomplish closure.
" Compliance period" begins when the Commission sets secondary ground-water protection standards and ends when the owner or operator's license is terminated and the site is-transferred to the State or Federal agency
~
for long-term care.
" Dike" means an embankment or ridge of either natural or man-made materials used to prevent the movement of liquids, sludges, solids or other materials.
" Disposal area" means the area containing byproduct materials to which the requirements of Criterion 6 apply.
" Existing portion" means that land surface area of an existing sur-face impoundment on which significant quantities of uranium or thorium byproduct materials had been placed prior to September 30, 1983.
" Ground water" means water below the land surface in a zone of saturation.
"Leachate" means any liquid, including any suspended or dissolved components in the liquid, that has percolated through or' drained from the byproduct material.
" Licensed site" means the area contained within the boundary of a location under the control of persons generating or storing byproduct materials under a Commission license.
54 i
}
[7590-01]
" Liner" means a continuous layer of natural or man-made materials, beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment which restricts the downward or lateral escape of byproduct material, hazardous constituents, or leachate.
" Point of compliance" is the site specific location in the uppermost aquifer where the ground-water protection standard must be met.
" Surface impoundment" teans a natural topographic depression, man-made excavation, or diked area, which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids, and wh'ich is not an injection well.
" Uppermost aquifer" means the geologic _ formation nearest the natural ground surface that is an aquifer, as well as lower aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected with this aquifer within the facility's property boundary.
3.
Criterion 5 is revised to read as follows:
Criterion 5 - Criteria '!A-50 and new Criterion 13 incorporate the basic ground-water protection standards imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts 0 and E (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983) which apply during operations and prior to the end of closure. Ground-water monitoring to comply with these standards is required by Criterion 7A.
SA(1)--The primary ground-water protection standard is a design standard for surface impoundments used to manage uranium and thorium byproduct material.
Surface impoundments (except for an existing portion) must have a liner that is designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment to the adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during the active life 55 d
0 e
(7590-01]
(including the closure period) of the impoundment.
The liner may be con-structed of materials that may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but not into the adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water) during the active life of the facility, provided that impoundment closure includes removal or decontamination of all waste residues, contaminated containment system components (liners, etc.), contaminated subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste and leachate.
For impound-ments that will be closed with the liner material left in place, the liner must be constructed of materials that can prevent wastes from migrating into the liner during the active life of the facility.
SA(2)--The liner required by paragraph SA(1) above must be--
(a) Constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients (including static head and external hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic condi-tions, the stress of installation, and the stress of daily operation; (b) Placed upon a foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement, compression, or uplift; and (c) Installed to cover all surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the wastes or leachate.
SA(3)--The applicant or licensee will be exempted from the requirements of paragraph SA(1) of this criterion if the Commission finds, based on a demon-stration by the applicant or licensee, that alternate design and operating practices, including the closure plan, together with site characteristics will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into ground water or surface 56
[7590-01]
water at any future time.
In deciding whether to grant an exemption, the Commission will consider--
l' (a) The nature and quantity of the wastes;
]
(b) The proposed alternate design and operation; 4
i (c) The hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the e
attenuative capacity and thickness of the liners and soils present between the impoundment and ground water or surface water; and j
(d) All other factors which would influence the quality and mobility of the leachate produced and the potential for it to migrate to ground i
water or surface water.
SA(4)--A surface impoundment must be designed, constructed, main-I tained, and operated to prevent overtopping resulting from normal or 4
abnormal operations; overfilling; wind and wave actions; rainfall; run-on; malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment; and human 4
l
- error, a
5A(5)--When dikes are used to form the surface impoundment, the dikes t
must be designed, constructed, and maintained with sufficient structural
)
integrity to prevent massive failure of the dikes.
In ensuring structural integrity, it must not be presumed that the liner system will function without leakage during the active life of the impoundment.
58(1)--Uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed to f
conform to the following secondary ground-water protection standard:
Hazardous constituents entering the ground water from a licensed site must I
not exceed the specified concentration limits in the uppermost aquifer i
i beyond the point of compliance during the compliance period. Hazardous constituents are those constituents identified by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 5B(2) of this criterion. Specified concentration limits are 57 1
l
,. -. - - - ~.. -.-.
- ~. _ -.
[7590-012 those limits established by the Commission as indicated in paragraph 5B(5) i of this criterion.
The Commission will also establish the point of com-4 pliance and compliance period on a site specific basis through 1icense conditions and orders. The objective in selecting the point of compliance
'is to provide the earliest practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous constituents to the ground water.
The point of com-pliance must be selected to provide prompt indication of ground-water E
contamination on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the disposal area.
+
The Commission shall identify hazardous constituents, establish concentra-l tion limits -set the compliance period, and adjust the point of compliance,
)
if needed, when the detection monitoring established under Criterion 7A indicates leakage of hazardous constit 0ents from the disposal area.
5B(2)--A constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to para-graph 5B(5) when the constituent--
1' (a) Is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the byproduct material in the disposal area; l
(b) Has been detected in the ground water in the uppermost aquifer; I
and i
l (c) Is listed in Criterion 13 of this appendix.
l 5B(3)--The Commission may exclude a detected constituent from the set of hazardous constituents on a site specific basis if it finds that i
the constituent is not capable of posing a substantial present or poten-j tial hazard to human health or the environment.
In deciding whether to exclude constituents, the Commission will consider the following:
)
(a) Potential adverse effects on ground-water quality, considering--
(i) The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in i
i the licensed site, including its potential for migration; 1
i 58 1
i-t
,_,,,,.--.-,--._.--.,..,.c
o
[7590-01]
(ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and sur-rounding land; (iii) The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-water flow; (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users; (v) The current and future uses of ground water in the area; a
(vi) The existing quality of ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on the ground-water quality; (vii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents;
~
(viii) The potential damage to wild-life, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; (fx) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
i (b) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface water quality, considering --
(i) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site; (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land; (iii) The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direc-tion of ground water flow; (iv) The patterns of rainfall in the region; (v) The proximity of the licensed site to surface waters; (vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those surface waters; 59 i
[7590-01]
(vii) The existing quality of surface water, including other sources of contamination and the cumulative impact on surface-water quality; (viii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; (fx) The potential damage to wild-life, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; and (x) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
5B(4)--In making any determinations under paragraphs 5B(3) and SB(6) of this criterion about the use of ground water in the area around the facility, the Commission will consider any identification of underground sources of drinking water and exempted aquifers made by the Environmental Protection Agency.
5B(5)--At the point of compliance, the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed --
(a) The Commission approved background concentration of that constituent in the ground water; (b) The respective value given in the table in paragraph SC if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit established by the Commission.
5B(6)--The Commission will establish a site specific alternate con-centration limit for a hazardous constituent as provided in paragraph 60
0 e
[7590-01].
5B(5) of this criterion if it finds that the constituent will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded.
Irt estab-lishing alternate concentration limits, the Commission will apply its_as low as reasonably achievable criterion in 10 CFR 20.1(c).
The Commission will. also consider the following factors:
(a) Potential adverse effects on ground water quality, considering--
(i) The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site including its potential for migration; (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land; (iii) The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-water flow; (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground water users; (v) The current and future uses of ground water in the area; (vi) The existing quality of ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on the ground-water quality; (vii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; (viii) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; (ix) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse t
effects.
61
[7590-01]
(b) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface water cuality, considering --
(i) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the j
waste in the licensed site; (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and i
surrounding land; I
(iii) The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direc-tion of ground-water. flow; a
(iv) The patterns of rainfall in the region; (v) The proximity of the' licensed site to surface waters; (vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those surface waters; (vii) The existing quality of surface water including other sources of contamination and the cumulative impact on surface water quality; (viii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; (ix)
The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; and (x)
The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
f i
62
[7590-01]
SC--MAXIMUM VALUES FOR GROUNO-WATER PROTECTION:
Maximum Constituent or Property Concentration Milligrams per liter Arsenic............................
0.05 Barium.................................................
1.0 Cadmium................................................
0.01 Chromium...............................................
0.05 Lead...................................................
0.05 Mercury................................................
0.002 Selenium...............................................
0.01 Silver.................................................
0.05 Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,7 -expoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,9a-octahydro-1, 4-endo, endo-5,8-dimethano naphthalene) 0.0002 Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma isomer)........................................
0.004 Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis (p-methox-yphenylethane)......................................
0.1 Toxaphene (C oH oCle, Technical chlorinated cam-t t
phene, 67-69 percent chlorine).......................
0.005 2,4-0 (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid).................
0.1 2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypro-picnic acid).........................................
0.01 Picacuries per liter f
Combined radium - 226 and radium -228.................
5 Gross. alpha particle activity (excluding radon and uranium when producing uranium byproduct material or radon and thorium when producing thorium byproduct material)..................................
15 SD--If the ground-water protection standards established under paragraph 5B(1) of this criterion are exceeded at a licensed site, a corrective action program must be put into operation as soon as is practicable, and in no event later than eighteen (18) months after the Commission finds that the standards have been exceeded. The licensee shall submit the proposed corrective action program and supporting rationale for Commission approval prior to putting the program into i
63
o
[7590-01]
t operation, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
The objective of the program is to return hazardous constituent concentration levels in ground water to the concentration limits set as standards. The licensee's i.
proposed program must address removing the hazardous constituents that have entered the ground water at the point of compliance or treating them in place. The program must also address removing or treating in place any hazardous constituents that exceed concentration limits in ground water between the point of compliance and the downgradient facility property boundary. The licensee shall continue corrective action measures to the extent necessary to achieve and maintain compliance with the ground-water protection standard.
The Commission will determine when the licensee may terminate corrective action measures based on data from the ground-water monitoring program and other information that provide reasonable assurance that the ground-water protection standard will not be exceeded.
. SE--In developing and conducting ground-water protection programs, applicants and licensees shall also consider the following:
}
(1) Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic liners are used, j
a leakage detection system must be installed immediately below the liner to ensure major failures are detected if they occur.
This is in addition to t
the ground-water monitoring program conducted as provided in Criterion 7.
Where clay liners are proposed or relatively thin, in-situ clay soils are to be relied upon for seepage control, tests must be conducted with repre-sentative tailings solutions and clay materials to confirm that no signifi-3 cant deterioration of permeability or stability properties will occur with continuous exposure of clay to tallings solutions.
Tests must be run for 4
64
[7590-01]
a sufficient period of time'to reveal any effects if they are going to occur (in some cases deterioration has been observed to occur rather rap-idly after about nine months of exposure)).
(2) Mill process designs which provide the maximum practicable re-cycle of solutions and conservation of water to reduce the net input of l
liquid to the tailings impoundment.
(3) Dewatering of tailings by process devices and/or in-situ drain-age systems (At new sites, tailings must be dewatered by a drainage system installed at the bottom of the impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head of seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a system. Where in-situ dewatering is to be conducted, the impoundment bottom must be graded to assure that the drains are at a low point. The drains must be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system must also be j
adequately sized to assure good drainage).
(4) Neutralization to promote immobilization of hazardous constituents.
SF--Where ground water impacts are occurring at an existing site due to seepage, action must be taken to alleviate conditions that lead to excessive seepage impacts and restore ground-water quality. The specific seepage control and. ground-water protection method, or combination of
~
methods, to be used must be worked out on a site-specific basis.
Technical specifications must be prepared to control installation of seepage control systems. A quality assurance, testing, and inspection program, which in-cludes supervision by a qualified engineer or scientist, must be estab-lished to assure the specifications are met.
't i
65 1
.. ~,,... _. -
_.-_-y.,,
.~, _ _. _
--m.,
[7590-01]
SG--In support of a tailings disposal system proposal, the applicant /
operator shall supply information concerning the following:
(1) The chemical and radioactive characteristics of the waste solutions.
(2) The characteristics of the underlying soil and geologic forma-tions particularly as they will control transport of contaminants and solutions. This includes detailed information concerning extent, thick-ness, uniformity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata. Hydraulic 4
gradients and conductivities of the various formations must be determined.
This information must be gathered from borings and field survey methods taken within the proposea impoundment area and in surrounding areas where contaminants might migrate to ground water. The information gathered on boreholes must include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient number and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant dis-continuities, fractures, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic conductivity.
If field survey meth'ods are used, they should be in addition to and calibrated with borehole logging. Hydrologic parameters such as per-meability may not be determined on the basis of laboratory analysis of samples alone; a sufficient amount of field testing (e.g., pump tests) must be conducted to assure actual field properties are adequately under-stood.
Testing must be conducted to allow estimating chemi-sorption attenuation properties of underlying soil and rock.
(3) Location, extent, quality, capacity and current uses of any ground water at and near the site.
5H--Steps must be taken during stockpiling of ore to minimize pene-tration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of ore storage areas.
66
[7590-01]
4.
Criterion 6 is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of Criterion 6:
Criterion 6 The licensee shall also address the nonradiological hazards asso-ciated with the wastes in planning and implementing closure.
The licensee shall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a manner that minimizes the need for further maintenance.
To the extent necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment, the license shall control, minimize, or eliminate post-closure escape of nonradiological hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated rainwater, or waste decomposition products td the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.
5.
Criterion 7 is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of Criterion 7:
Criterion 7 7A--The incensee shall establish a detection monitoring program needed to establish the ground water protection standards in paragraph SB(1) of this appendix. A detection monitoring program has two purposes.
The ini-tial purpose of the program is to detect leakage of hazardous constituents from the disposal area so that the need to set ground water protection standards is monitored.
If leakage is detected, the second purpose of the program is to generate data and information needed for the Commission to establish the standards under Criterion 58.
The data and information must provide a sufficient basis to identify those hazardous constituents which require concentration limit standards and to enable the Commission to set the limits for those constituents and the compliance period.
They may also need to provide the basis for adjustments to the point of compliance.
For l
licenses in effect September 30, 1983, the detection monitoring programs
)
1 67
~ _ _.
0 0
[7590-01)'
must have been in place by October 1, 1984.
For licenses issued after i
j September 30, 1983, the detection. monitoring programs must be in place i.
when specified by the Commission in orders or license conditions. Once ground water protection standards have been established pursuant to l
paragraph 5B(1), the licensee shall establish and implement a compliance monitoring program. The purpose of the compliance monitoring program is to determine that the hazardous constituent concentrations in ground water continue to comply with the standards set by the Commission.
In conjunction with a corrective action program, the licensee shall establish and implement a corrective action monitoring program. The purpose of the corrective action monitoring program is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the corrective actions. Any monitoring program required by this paragraph may be based on existing monitoring programs to the extent the existing programs can meet the stated objective for the program.
6.
Add the following new heading and a new Criterion 13 at the end of Appendix A to read as follows:
V.
Hazardous Constituents t
Criterion 13 -- Secondary ground water protection standards required 1
by criterion 5 of this appendix are concentration limits for individual l
1 hazardous constituents. The following list of constituents identifies l
l the constituents for which standards must be set and complied with if the specific constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the I
byproduct material and has been detected in ground water.
For purposes of this Appendix, the property of gross alpha activity will be treated
)
i 5
l 68
[7590-01]
l 1
i as if it is a hazardous constituent. Thus, when setting standards under
~
f paragraph SB(5) of Criterion'5, the Commission will also set a limit for i
i.
gross alpha activity.
tj.
1 Hazardous Constituents Acetonitrile (Ethanenitrile)
Acetophenone (Ethanone, 1 phenyl) i 3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxycoumarin and salts (Warfarin) 2-Acetylaminofluorene (Acetamide, N-(9H-fluoren-2 yl)-)
i Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride) i 1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (Acetamide, N-(amb '. wxomethyl)-)
j Acrolein (2-Propenal)
Acrylamide (2-Propenamide)
Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile) i l
Aflatoxins l
Aldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene)
Allyl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol) j Aluminum phosphide 4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4-amine) i 6-Amino-1,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxymethyl)-8a-methoxy-5-methyl-i carbamate azirino[2',3':3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a] indole-4,7-dione, I
I (ester) (Mitomycin C) (Azirino[2'3':3,4]pyrrolo(1,2-a) indole-4,7-1 j
dione,6-amino-8-[((amino-cabonyl) oxy) methyl]-1,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexa-hydro-8a methoxy-5-methy-)
i "The abbreviation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members l
of the general class not specifically listed by name in this list.
i 69 3
1 l
1
e O
O
[7590-01]
i 5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol (3(2H)-Isoxazolone, 5-(aminomethyl)-) 4-
/
Aminopyridine (4-Pyridinamine)
Amitrole (1H-1,2,4-Triazol,-3-amini) f Aniline (Benzenamine) x r
Antimony and compounds, N.C.S.^,
1 I
Aramite (Sulf,urous acid, 2-chloroeth'yl, 2-[4-(2,1-dimethylethyl) 8 phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester)
.,\\
Arsenic and compounds, N.O.S.*
/
Arsenic acid (Orthoarsenic acid)
Arsenic pentoxide (Arsenic (V) oxide) 4 Arsenic trioxide (Arsalic.(III) oxide)
Auramine (Benzenamine,t,$'-carbonimidEjlbis[N,N-Dimethyl,monohydro-chloride)
'\\
't Azaserine (L-Serine, diazoacetate (ester))
Barium and compou.1ds, N.O.S.*
Barium cyanide Benz [c] acridine (3,4-Be'azacridine)
Benz [a]anthracenefif2'8enzanthracene) i Benzene (Cyclohexatriene) l,p Benzenearsonic acid (Arsonic acid, phenyl-)
Benzene, dichloromethyl- (Benzal chloride)
Benzenethiol (Thiophenol)
- 4 s
Benzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4' diamine)
/
Benzo [b]fluoranthene (,2,3-Benzofluor.anthene)
Benzo [j]fluoranthene (7,8-Benzofluoranthene)
Benzo [a] pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene)i p-Benzoquinone (1,4-Cyclohexadienedione) 10 l
..,_.m..~.___,__,
[7590-01]
Benzotrichloride (Benzene, trichloromethyl)-
Benzyl chloride (Benzene, (chloromethyl)-)
Beryllium and compounds.N.O.S.*
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane (Ethane, 1,l'-[methylenebis(oxy)] bis [2-chloro-))
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (Ethane, 1,l'-oxybis[2-chloro-])
N,N-Bis (2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine-(Chlornaphazine)
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether (Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[2-chloro-))
Bis (chloromethyl) ether (Methane, oxybis[ chloro-])
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis (2-ethyl-hexyl) ester)
Bromoacetone (2-Propanone, 1-bromo-)
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether (Benzene, 1-bromo-4 phenoxy-)
Brucine (Strychnidin-10-one, 2,3-dimethoxy-)
2-Butanone peraxide (Methyl ethyl ketone, peroxide)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenyl-
~
methyl ester) 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (DNBP) (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methyl-propyl)-)
i Cadmium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Calcium chromate (Chromic acid, calcium salt)
Calcium cyanide Carbon disulfide (Carbon bisulfide)
-Carbon oxyfluoride (Carbonyl' fluoride)
Chloral (Acetaldehyde, trichloro-)
Chlorambucil (Butanoic acid, 4-[ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino] benzene-)
71
c
[7590-01]
o
- Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers) (4,7-Methanoindan, 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-3,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-) (alpha and gamma isomers) 4 i
Chlorinated benzenes, N.O.S.*
- s Chlorinated ethane, N.O.S.*
Chlorinated fluorocarbons, N.O.S*
Chlorinated naphthalene, N.O.S.*
Chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.*
Chloroacetaldehyde (Acetaldehyde, chloro-)
Chlorealkyl ethers, N.O.S.*
p-Chloroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-chloro-)
Chlorobenzene (Benzene, chloro-)
Chlorobenzilate (Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-
alpha-hydroxy, ethyl ester) p-Chloro-m-cresol (Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl) 1-Chloro-2,3 epoxypropane (0xirane, 2-(chloromethyl)-).
2 Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)-)
Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-)
Chloremethane (Methyl chloride)
Chloromethyl methyl ether (Methane, chloromethoxy-)
2-Chloronaphthalene (Naphthalene, betachloro-)
2-Chlorophenol (Phenol, o-chloro-)
1-(0-Chlorophenyl) thiourea (Thiourea, (2-chlorophenyl)-)
3-Chloropropionitrile (Propanenitrile, 3-chloro-)
Chromium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Chrysene (1,2-Benzphenanthrene)
Citrus red No. 2 (2-Naphthol, 1-[(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl) azo]-)
72
[7590-01]
Coal tars Copper cyanide Creosote (Creosote, wood)
Cresols (Cresylic acid) (Phenol, methyl-)
Crotonaldehyde (2-Butenal)
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), N.O.S."
Cyanogen (Ethanedinitrile)
Cyanogen bromide (Bromine cyanide)
Cyanogen chloride (Chlorine cyanide)
Cycasin (beta-D-Glucopyranoside, (methyl-ONN-azoxy) methyl-) '
2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-)
Cyclophosphamide (2H-1,3,2,-0xazaphosphorine, [ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]-tetrahydro,2-oxide)
Daunomycin (5,12-Naphthacenedione, (85-cis)-8-acetyl-10-[(3-amino-2,3, 6-trideoxy)-alpha-L-lyxo-hexopyranosyl) oxy]-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,8,ll-trihydroxy-1-methoxy-)
000 (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) (Ethane,1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-)
DDE (Ethylene, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (4-chlorophenyl)-)
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-j Diallate (S-(2,3-dichloreallyl) diisopropylthiocarbamate)
Dibenz[a,h] acridine (1,2,5,6-Dibenzacridine)-
Dibenz[a,j] acridine (1,2,7,8-Dibenzacridine)
Dibenz[a,h] anthracene (1,2,5,6-Dibenzanthracene) 7H-Dibenzo[c,g] carbazole (3,4,5,6-Dibenzcarbazole)
Dibenzo[a,e] pyrene (1,2,4,5-Dibenzpyrene) 73
e O
[7590-01]
Dibenzo[a,h] pyrene (1,2,5,6-Dibenzpyrene)
Dibenzo[a,i] pyrene (1,2,7,8-Dibenzpyrene) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (Propane,1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-)
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
Dibromomethane (Methylene bromide)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester) o-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-)
m-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-)
p-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-)
Dichlorobenzene, N.0.S.* (Benzene, dichloro, N.O.S.*)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro-)
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Methane, dichlorodifluoro-)
1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) tran's-1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-Dichloroethylene)
Dichloroethylene, N.0.5.* (Ethene, dichloro, N.0.S.*)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-)
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2,4-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-)
2,6-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-)
1 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), salts and esters (Acetic acid, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy, salts and esters)
Dichlorophenylarsine (Phenyl dichloroarsine)
Dichloropropane, N.O.S.* (Propane, dichloro, N.O.S.*)
1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride) 74
[7590-01]
Dichloropropanol, N.0.S." (Propanol, dichloro, N.0.S.*)
Dichloropropene, N.0.5.* (Propene, dichloro, N.O.S.*)
1,3-Dichloropropene (1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-)
Dieldin (1,2,3,4,10.10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octa-hydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene) 1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane (2,2'-Bioxirane)
Diethylarsine (Arsine, diethyl-)
N,N-Diethy1hydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diethyl) 0,0-Diethyl S-methyl ester of phosphorodithioic acid (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 5-methyl ester) 0,0-Diethylphosphoric acid, 0 p-nitrophenyl ester (Phosphoric acid, diethyl p-nitrophenyl ester)
Diethyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) 0,0-Diethyl 0-2 pyrazinyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0 pyrazinyl ester)
Diethylstilbesterol (4,4'-Stilbenediol, alpha, alpha-diethyl, bis (dihydrogen phosphate, (E)-)
Dihydrosafrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4 propyl-)
3,4-Dihydroxy alpha-(methylamino) methyl benzyl alcohol (1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethy))-)
Dilsopropylfluorophosphate (DFP) (Phosphorofluoridic acid, l
bis (1-methylethyl) ester) i Dimethoate (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl S-[2-(methylzmino) l oxoethyl] ester) 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1,l'-Bipheny1]- 4,4'-diamine, 3-3'-dimethoxy-)
l p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-)
i 75
[7590-01]
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a] anthracene (1,2-Benzanthracene, 7,12-dimethyl-)
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethyl-)
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride (Carbamoyl chloride, dimethyl-)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl-)
1,2-Dimethy1hydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl-)
3,3-Dimethyl-1-(methylthio)-2-butanone, 0-[(methylamino) carbony1]
oxime (Thiofanox) alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine (Ethanamine, 1,1-dimethyl-2 phenyl-)
2,4-Dimethylphenol_(Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-)
Dimethyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester)
Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester)
Dinitrobenzene, N.0.S.* (Benzene, dinitro, N.O.S.*)
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol and salts (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-methyl, and salts) 2,4-Dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro-)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,6-dinitro-)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester) 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene oxide)
Diphenylamine (Benzenamine, N phenyl-)
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-)
Di-n propyinitrosamine (N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine)
Disulfoton (0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio) ethyl] phosphorodithioate) 2,4-Dithiobiuret (Thioimidodicarbonic diamide)
Endosulfan (5-Norbornene, 2,3-dimethanol, 1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro,
cyclic sulfite) 76
v
[7590-01]
Endrin and metabolites (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,
-7,8,8a-octahydro-endo, endo-1,4: 5,8-dimethanonaphthalene, and metabolites)
Ethyl carbamate (Urethan) (Carbamic acid, ethyl ester)
Ethyl cyanide (propanenitrile)
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters (1,2-Ethanediyl-biscarbamodithioic acid, salts and esters)
Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)
Ethylene oxide (0xirane)
Ethylenethiourea (2-Imidazolidinethione)
Ethyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, ethyl ester)
Ethyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester)
Fluoranthene (Benzo [j,k] fluorene)
Fluorine 2-Fluoroacetamide (Acetamide, 2-fluoro-)
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt (Acetic acid, fluoro, sodium salt)
Formaldehyde (Methylene oxide)
Formic acid (Methanoic acid)
Glycidylaldehyde (1-Propanol-2,3-epoxy)
Halomethane, N.O.S.*
Heptachlor (4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-)
Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers) (4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-2,3-epoxy-3a,4,7,7-tetrahydro,
alpha, beta, and gamma isomers)
Hexachlorobenzene (Benzene, hexachloro-)
Hexachlorobutadiane (1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-)
77 I
7
[7590-01]
Hexachlorocyclohexane'(all isomers) (Lindane and isomers)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro-)
Hexachloroethane (Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2,2-hexachloro-)-
1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,8-endo, endo-dimethanonaphthalene (Hexachlorchexa-hydro endo, endo-dimethanonaphthalene)
Hexachlorophene (2,2'-Methylenebis(3,4,6-trichlorophenol)
Hexachloropropene (1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexachloro-)
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate (Tetraphosphoric acid, hexaethyl ester)
Hydrazine-(Diamine)
Hydrocyanic acid (Hydrogen cyanide)
Hydrofluoric acid (Hydrogen fluoride)
Hydrogen sulfide (Sulfur hydride)
Hydroxydimethylarsine oxide (Caco'dylic acid)
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (1,10-(1,2 phenylene) pyrene)
Iodomethane (Methyl iodide)
Iron dextran (Ferric dextran)
Isocyanic acid, methyl aster (Methyl isocyanate)
Isobutyl alcohol (1-Propanol, 2-methyl-)
Isosafrole (Benzene,1,2-meth;.lenedioxy-4-ally 1-)
Kepone (Decachlorooctahydro-1,3,4-Methano-2H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one)
Lasiocarpine (2-Butenoic acid, 2-methyl, 7-[(2,3-dihydroxy (1-methoxyethyl)-3-methyl-1-oxobutoxy)methy1]-2,3,5,7a-tetrahydro-lH pyrrolizin-1 y1 ester)
Lead and compounds, N.0.S.*
Lead acetate (Acetic acid, lead salt)
Lead phosphate (Phosphoric acid, lead salt) 78
e
[7590-01]
Lead subacetate (Lead, bis (acetato-0)tetrahydroxytri-).
Maleic anhydride (2,5-Furandione)
Maleic hydrazide (1,2-Dihydro-3,6 pyridazinedione)
Malononitrile (Propanedinitrile)
Melphalan (Alanine, 3-[p-bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]phenyl,L-)
Mercury fulminate (Fulminic acid, mercury s' lt) a Mercury and compounds, N.O.S.*
Methacrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-)
Methanethiol (Thiomethanol)
Methapyrilene (Pyridine, 2-[(2-dimethylamino) ethyl]-2-thenylamino-)
Metholmyl (Acetimidic acid, N-[(methylcarbamoyl) oxy] thio, methyl ester)
Methoxychlor (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2'-bis (p-methoxyphenyl)-)
2-Methylaziridine (1,2-Propylenimine) 3-Methylcholanthrene (Benz [j]aceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-)
Methyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonochloridic acid, methyl ester) 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebis-(2-chloro-)
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (2-Butanone)
Methyl hydrazine (Hydrazine, methyl-)
2-Methyllactonitrile (Propanenitrile, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-)
Methyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, methyl ester)
Methyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester) 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde-o-(methylcarbonyl) oxime (Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio), 0-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime)
N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (Guanidine, N-nitroso-N-methyl-N'-
nitro-)
Methyl parathion (0,0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) phosphorothioate) 79
9
~
f
[7590-01]
Methylthfouracil (4-1H-Pyrimidinone, 2,3-dihydro-6-methyl-2-thioxo-)
Molybdenum and compounds, N.O.S.*
Mustard gas (Sulfide, bis (2-chloroethyl)-)
Naphthalene 1,4-Naphthoquinone (1,4-Naphthalenedione) 1-Naphthylamine (alpha-Naphthylamine) 2-Naphthylamine (beta-Naphthylamine) 1-Naphthyl-2-thiourea (Thiourea, 1-naphthalenyl-)
Nickel and compounds, N.O.S.*
Nickel carbonyl (Nickel tetracarbonyl)
Nickel cyanide (Nickel (II) cyanide)
Nicotine and salts (Pyridine, (S)-3-(1-methyl-2 pyrrolidinyl), and salts)
Nitric oxide (Nitrogen (II) oxide) p-Nitroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-nitro-)
Nitrobenzine (Benzene, nitro-)
Nitrogen dioxide (Nitrogen (IV) oxide)
Nitrogen mustard and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro,
N-(2-chloroethyl)- N-methyl, and hydrochloride salt)
Nitrogen mustard N-Oxide and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro,
N-(2-chloroethyl)-N-methyl, and hydrochloride salt)
Nitroglycerine (1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate) 4-Nitrophenol (Phenol, 4-nitro-)
4-Nitroquinoline-1-oxide (Quinoline, 4-nitro-1-oxide-)
Nitrosamine, N.O.S.*
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (1-Butanamine, N-butyl-N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (Ethanol, 2,2'-(nitrosoimino) bis-)
80
e
[7590-01]
N-Nitrosodiethylamine (Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N nitroso-)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (Dimethylnitrosamine)
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea (Carbamide, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine (Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea (Carbamide, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane (Carbamic acid, methylnitroso, ethyl ester)
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Ethenamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine, N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (Nornicotine, N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosopiperidine (Pyridine, hexahydro, N-nitroso-)
Nitrosopyrrolidine (Pyrrole, tetrahydro, N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrososarcosine (Sarcosine, N-nitroso-)
5-Nitro-o-toluidine (Benzenamine, 2-methyl-5-nitro-)
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide (Diphosphoramide, octamethyl-)
Osmium tetroxide (Osmium (VIII) oxide) 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid (Endothal)
Paraldehyde (1,3,5-Trioxane, 2,4,6-trimethyl-)
Parathion (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(p-nitrophenyl) ester)
Pentachlorobenzene (Benzene, pentachloro-)
Pentachloroethane (Ethane, pentachloro-)
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) (Benzene, pentachloronitro-)
Pentachlorophenol (Phenol, pentachloro-)
Phenacetin (Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-)
Phenol (Benzene, hydroxy-)
Phenylenediamine (Benzenediamine)
Phenylmercury acetate (Mercury, acetatophenyl-)
N-Phenylthiourea (Thiourea, phenyl-)
81
a:
[7590-01]
Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride) rhosphine (Hydrogen phosphide)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[(ethylthio) methyl] ester-(Phorate)
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-[p-((dimethylamino) sulfonyl)phenyl]
ester (Famphur)
Phthalic acid esters, N.0.S.* (Benzene, 1,2-dicarboxylic acid, esters, N.O.S.*)
Phthalic anhydride (1,2-8enzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride) 2-Picoline-(Pyridine, 2-methyl-)
Polychlorinated biphenyl, N.0.5.*
Potassium cyanide Potassium silver cyanide (Argentate(1-), dicyano, potassium)
Pronamide (3,5-Oichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2 propynyl) benzamide) 1,3-Propane sultone (1,2-0xathiolane, 2,2-dioxide) n-Propylamine (1-Propanamine)
Propylthiouracil (Undecamethylenediamine, N,N'-bis (2-chlorobenzyl-),
dihydrochloride) 2-Propyn-1-ol (Propargyl alcohol)
Pyridine Radium -226 and -228 Reserpine ~(Yohimban-16-carboxylic acid, ll,17-dimethoxy-18-[3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoyl) oxy], methyl ester)
Resorcinol (1,3-Benzenediol)
Saccharin and salts (1,2-Benzoisothiazolin-3-one, 1,1-dioxide, and salts)
Safrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-allyl-)
Selenious acid (Selenium dioxide)
Selenium and compounds, N.0.S.*
82
,Y9,
[7590-01]
Selenium sulfide (Sulfur selenide)
Selenourea (Carbamimidoselenoic acid)
Silver and compounds, N.0.S.*
Silver cyanide Sodium cyanide Streptozotocin (D-Glucopyranose, 2-deoxy-2-(3-methyl-3-nitrosoureido)-)
Strontium sulfide Strychnine and salts (Strychnidin-10-one, and salts) 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin (TCCD) (Dibenzo p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-)
Tetrachloroethane, N.O.S.* (Ethane, tetrachlorn, N.0.S.*)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane,1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-)
Tetrachloroethane (Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-)
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 2,3,4,6,-Tetrachlorophenol (Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-)
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate (Dithiopyrophosphoric acid, tetraethyl-ester)
Tetraethyl lead (Plumbane, tetraethyl-)
Tetraethylpyrophosphate (Pyrophosphoric acide, tetraethyl ester)
Tetranitromethane (Methane, tetranitro-)
Thallium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Thallic oxide (Thallium (III) oxide)
Thallium (I) acetate (Acetic acid, thallium (I) salt)
Thallium (I) carbonate (Carbonic acid, dithallium (I) salt)
Thallium (I) chloride Thallium (I) nitrate (Nitric acid, thallium (I) salt) 83
ll 9
[7590-01]
Thallium selenite 1
Thallium (I) sulfate (Sulfuric acid, thallium (I) salt)
Thioacetamide (Ethanethioamide)
Thiosemicarbazide (Hydrazinecarbothioamide)
Thiourea (Carbamide thio-)
Thiuram (Bis (dimethylthiocarbamoyl) disulfide)
Thorium and compounds, N.O.S.*, when producing thorium byproduct material Toluene (Benzene, methyl-)
Toluenediamine (Diaminatoluene) o-Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine, 2-methyl, hydrochloride)
Tolylene diisocyanate (Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-)
Toxaphene (Camphene, octachloro-)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-)
Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)
Trichloromethanethiol (Methanethiol, trichloro-)
Trichloromonofluoromethane (Methane, trichlorofluoro-)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T)
(Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2,4,5-TP) (Silvex)
(Propionoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-)
Trichloropropane, N.0.5.* (Propane, trichloro, N.O.S.*)
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-)
84
, ') 1 3
[7590-01]
0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0,0-triethyl ester) sym-Trinitrobenzene (Benzene, 1,3,5-trinitro-)
Tris (1-azridinyl) phosphine sulfide (Phosphine sulfide, tris (1-aziridinyl-)
Tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (1-Propanol, 2,3-dibromo, phosphate)
Trypan blue (2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3'-[(3,3'-dimethyl (1,l'-biphenyl)- 4,4'-diyl) bis (azo)] bis (5-amino-4-hydroxy,
tetrasodium salt)
Uracil mustard (Uracil 5-[ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]-)
Uranium and compounds, N.0.5.*
Vanadic acid, ammonium salt (ammonium vanadate)
Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium (V) oxide)
Vinyl chloride.(Ethene, chloro-)
Zinc cyanide Zinc phosphide Dated at Washington, DC this day of
, 1986.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
85
\\
ENCLOSURE 3 9
SEE ATTACHED CONGRESSIONAL LETTER PACKAGE
s DRAFT
-)
NRC CONSIDERS REGULATIONS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER NEAR URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES j
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering amending its regulations on uranium mill tailings to incorporate ground-water protection requirements published by the Environmental Protection Agency.
l The action is being taken to comply with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and the NRC Authorization Act for 1982 and 1983, which require the NRC to bring its tailings regulations into confonnity with -
~
the s~tandards issued by EPA'.
The NRC's proposed regulations would incorporate two principal EPA standards:
(1) Licensees and applicants would have to install a liner under surface impoundments--natural depressions, man-made excavations or diked areas designed to hold accumulations of wastes or mill tailings. Existing portions of impoundments would be exempt from the liner requirement, which is designed to prevent migration of wastes out of the impoundment. Applicants or licensees could also be exempted from the liner requirement if the Comission finds that alternative design and operating practices, along with characteristics of the specific site where the mill tailings are located, will prevent migration of specified hazardous materials into the ground or surface water.
l
ORAFT 4
(2)
If specified hazardous materials--both radioactive and non-radioactive--enter the ground water near a licensed mill tailings site, they must not exceed certain concentration limits, which may be the same as natural background levels. Under the proposed regulations, the Commission could exclude a specific hazardous material from this requirement for a particular site, or set a higher alternative concentration limit, if it finds that this will not present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.
If the Commission does establish a higher concentration limit for a hazardous material at a particular site, it will also require that the concentrations be as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account the state of technology and the economics of improvement in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest.
i l
The proposed NRC rules would also require licensees to establish a detection and compliance monitoring program to detect any leakage from the disposal area and ensure that the ground water complies with standards set by the Commission.
If the standards are exceeded, a corrective action program must be put into operation as soon as it is practicable, and in any event within 18 months.
t f
e
..-n-,.--
y_
- - -. - ~--
re--
w
,~w en--
t
]
D3dfl Other details of the proposed rule are contained in a Federal Register notice published on Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, by-(60daysafterpublicationoftheproposedruleinthe Federal Register).
An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 1984. Comments received were considered in developing the proposed rule.
(
I l
l l
l
[
i 9
1
.