ML20214N117
| ML20214N117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q655 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46425, FRN-51FR24697, RULE-PR-40 AB56-1-31, NUDOCS 8609160107 | |
| Download: ML20214N117 (10) | |
Text
f 485H st ** " ' 44 ,
+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON /
[
f,'.1[, WASMNGTON. D. C. 20555 e$
s.... pg y MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAr,ING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of .the rulemaking, " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwater Protection and Other Issues,"
sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director, NMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
The basis of cui reccimmendations is as' follows: -
o The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) mandates conformance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs NRC to assure .that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable to the EPA requirements.
o EPA's final standard in 40 CFR Part 192 mandates that tailings management and disposal not degrade groundwater. NRC's current regulations are based on not degrading groundwater beyond its use category. This difference and other provisions of the EPA standard i require major modifications of NRC's current regulations.
l 0 The three alternative approaches towards proposed rulemaking, l
currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable, o Proceeding with the propcsed rulemaking is in conformance with NRC Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings regulations which indicates that the remaining changes for implementing EPA's standards shall be completed by January 1988.
l o At this time, RES is not aware of any reasonable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standerds as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
, $91g107e60904 40 51FR24697 PDR 1
l
. 1 c
l 2 l The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (attention: 1 DEDROGR) and to the Director, NMSS.
0 '
Robert B. Minogue. Dire tor Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research e
e e e
l l
l
[
6 e
l
. 8 g
s RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE
~ ~ ~
.. . . . . . . _. _ _ . ... . . .. . . _. . ._L'_ . I. . .
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET 1
TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: 6. A. Arlotto, Menber, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uranium f1111 Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues (Part40)
GREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING ~.
D IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE.
MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.
. INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.
I l CO MENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
l l
l l
') '
f
/
(MEMBER. RIRB f
DATE
..- ~ m ... - . _ _
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET T0: RIRB FROM: F. P. Gillespie Chairman, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues (Part 40)
REE WITH DRAFT RES . REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT REC 099tENDATIONS MEETING.
[/ IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE.
MDDIFY-DRAFT RES '
' NOT PARTICIPATING.~
. INDEPENDENT RECGetENDATIONS
__ AS INDICATED BELOW.
ComENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
kyh Sb h4 U Rt [n k i)k h
- ah skoi 1 Le m.& lal y nnp h aI %
M M aop ko Lv ts le hv.rha cun,Nyk Q hY3>k5yaury'<fh5 pm p f a vb~,
' skks A N yn i l
. n
/
',/ EN ER, R
.- ydr DATE
l RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uranium Hill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards (Part 40)
AGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.
IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE.
MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.
INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS '
1AS INDICATED 8ELOW. .
COR4ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Straight approval .
~
l l
VW Mbw^
W. M. MORRIS 0N MEMBER, RIRB
.. 4/5/fi-DATE
. - .. u . . . .
Rt.s inDersnDENT R2Vltvi of Nuss Ruu6unnosig ROLmMG AND TRANSMITTAL SLp #R1 2 85 !
mk ==. emme e,neer, seem meneer, aumen ase.
AgenEF/ Peso
- g. W. M. Morrison. Member. RIRE S
g G. A. Arlotto, tiember. RIRB -
4, F. P. Gillespie. Chainnan, RIRB
~
E
.Y heuen Fee seate and naeum . .
p per esserene.
per coressmen per eeneweeuen he neouseems oweneenear '
tense e. Per veur bisennossa see ese E_ r tweemsees senseem w _ _-- m amannse U Vw df,'7 Q F' > " M : 8 -- -^S~ W @ -
fdTct" . . M 02Au 7~% % C PA Y0) -
We are at step III.C.2. *RIRS deliberations.' of the .
RES independent review procedures for the attached specific ongoing rulemaking sponsored by Please evaluate the . attached dra'ft independent review package and provide RA!!RB with your voting stwet indicating your position on the rulemaking.
Your response by c.o.b. MR 12 BBS will assist in RES' making independent recomendations to the EDO in a timely manner.
so esor une sus eenn as e arcosto et esprovens, eene.wveness, w einseenees, and samaer somsme FMitL peame, arg. syneet. Agency /PeeQ neem W RAMRB staff pnene see.
443-7885 ans -see penna 41 geer. 7 7s)
, e era. sus o - us.sn inn esa sea-nass
O 9
O $ O e
9 MEMORANDUM RES TO EDO WITH DIVISION DIRECTOR CONCURRENCE I
l l
i l
. DISTRIBUTION l r
Subj. FCostanzi l Cire. KGoller Chron. Dross WMB r/f RMinogue JStewart W0tt MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwaterh(jkeProtectionandOtherIssues,"
sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director, NMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
The basis.for our ' recommendations is as foll.ows.: ,
i The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) mandates conformance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs
! NRC.to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable to the EPA requirements.
The three alternative approaches towards proposed rulemaking, currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable.
RES staff does not recommend any specific alternative at this time but reserves the right to comment further when the proposed rule is presented.
Proceeding with the proposed rulemaking is in conformance with NRC Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings regulations which indicates that the remaining changes for implementing EPA's standards shall be completed by January 1988.
- At this time, RES is not aware of'any reasonable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
i i
Robert B. Minogue, Director
- " ' 9 * # * **
NOTE *See previous concurrence OFC: DRPES/WMB :DRPES/WMB :DRPES/D :RES/DD :RES/D :RIRB :
NAME:JStewart :FCostanzi. :KGoller : Dross :RMinogue :FGillespie :
DATE:3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :3/ /85 :
t .
l MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAXINC RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of the rulemakingj" Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (10 CFR Part 40): Groundwater Water Protection and Other Issues," -
sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director, NMSS, that the rulemaking effort should continue.
The basis for our recommendations is as follows:
-
- The Uranium Mill Tailiilgs Radia' tion Control Act of 1978' (UMTRCA)'
mandates.conformance to the EPA Standards in 40 CFR 192 and directs NRCtoassurethatmilltailingsaremanagedinamanner(tpis comparable to the EPA requirements. - _f/d
- The three alternative approaches towards" proposed rulemaking, currently under NMSS staff consideration, appear to be reasonable.
RES staff does not recomend any specific alternative at this time but reserves the right to comment further when the proposed rule is presented.
- Proceeding with the proposed rulemaking is in confonnance with NRC Planning Guidance for uranium mill tailings regulations which indicates that the remaining ch4nges for implementing EPA's standards shall be completed by Januaryp988.
- At this time, RES is not aware of any reasonable alternative to proceeding with this rulemaking effort to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DISTRIBUTION Subj. Circ. Chron. WMB/rf JStewart WOTT FCostanzi KGoller Dross RMinogue B : RES/DD : RES/D ; RIRB :
0FC:
DRPES/kM :pgPES/WMB :5 NAME:JStewa t" t'i :K oller : Dross : RMinogue : FGillespie :
___________.g...______,,_______________________________________________________. _________
DATE:3/J5/85 :3/;f /85 :3/g/85 : : : :
g' "'80g ' UNITED STATES 8+ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j= g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
\...../ .
MAR u 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: K. R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES FROM: Frank P. Gillespie, Chaiman
- RES Independent Review Board
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONGOING RULEMAKING Enclosed.
RES independent is a rulemaking review. (review package received.from a sponsoring office for Enclosure.1) ,
In accordance. with procedures approved by the ED0 on May 30,1984, the rule-making review package is assigned to your Division for action- (Enclosure 2). ,
The EDO-approved procedures allow a total of 20 working days for completing the RES independent review. To assist RES in completing its independent review in a timely manner, please submit the draft independent review package for this specific rulemaking to RAMRB by 7 working days from the ~date of this memorandum.
) -
i i V Frank P. Gil es ie, Chairman RES Independent Review Board l
Enclosures:
- 1. " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: "
Groundwater Protection and Other Issues" (10 CFR 40)
- 2. Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review of Rulemakings l
l
/
/
w e
0 o
I e
- O O
OFFICE REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM NMSS l
l l
, # p meer
/ "o UNITED STATES y, %, ,, g ,% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. 'g ,
wassmoTom. o. c. osss
% / W I4 ISc3 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING - EDO QUARTERLY REVIEW In response to your memorandum of February 13,1984, and in accordance with instructions provided in subsequent memoranda from the Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research (NRR), the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) has reviewed the ongoing or proposed rulemaking activities listed in Attachment 1 to this memorandum. On the basis of our review, we recommend approval of continued activity on these rules, with the exception of "Certifi-dation of Industrial Radiographers" and " Shallow Land Disposal of Radioactive Wasta". Staff efforts on these are now directed toward terminating the two rulemaking activities. -
Also, as directed by your memorandum and the subsequent instructions from RES, we have prepared Review Packages for all of the listed rulemaking activities.
These are included as attachments to this memorandum, with copies forwarded to RES and the other reviewing office . -
l f- ,
! Jdhn G. Davis, Director '
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
Attachments:
As stateo l
bec: RES RM DRR 0 0(k g6 lN CR
kb DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
" Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other-Issues"
Contact:
Kitty Dragonette 427-4300 8
e
?
l I
. ene == -om e e se - -. m.
I
= + 6. O .ames e e
=
, g se a e
- e e
e
- e e e
e S
NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY d
eWS*
8 9
. I f
, ._ .-- ~ _ . -
=
. iM : . . :'~ M
- - . .~1: u :. 2 -
.. :: - a .
~ #
h' mz{ . :. .. Jn.i
{ LR, gi,.*..
- @. TITLE,r.-- ._ . "_ M_ N -7! -
.t-
- .Uranrunk.)tf _ 51' in l , i Ground _ Water Fratectierr and g,,,,.,5*-~
.'- r~ngyggf
~ -~- _ 3.:" gar Regu at.u..~.
ons=.==gg g y;p
., .a - . .
~ys,eg.s .e v -
~w :,. . .
.&.y.. C:s -
v.e .. s # N:m-3.'..- d CIE CITATION.4 *I ? M DE. .
N
. @ .S.f[d N kM .hf-Y 1f$$h.Y e
@ "~ ,
= = Aer= :www Ther. advance, notice , oft e . : -s ruIemaking seeks comment ori NRC's 4
. n . tentative approach. to' propostmaking,further amendments to its uranium .T J
' miIL.taiIings c.eguIations. .The. con.templated rulemaking proceeding , d is intended to incorporate groundwater provirions and other .
requirements established br the Environmental Protection Agency 3 for similar harardous wastes into NRC regulationa This action is Q
- necessary to- make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards ,f as required by the Uranium Mill Tailingr Radiation Control Ach
'No &Irernatives 1@ this action ..;;f M h se..Mf::M.' Comme'iits on the ANPRM will help define the trature and . scope of the action.
~
EPA. har estimated that compIfarree with- their groundwater standards and.wi.th the stability, radon release,. and other --
requirementsf e'eeentily promulgated will cost the industry from
- about- S710 nrillion to $540 milliorr for aLL tai. lings generated by the year 2000'. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding orr NRC Licenseer-irt the interim. NRC resources and.
scheduler are sti.ll being de.veloped. .
TIMETABLE:.
ANPRM. Og'{0 p 'y //4t.&/(f ,
LEGAL AUTHORITTr 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 41 USC 790L Note l
EFFECTS ON SMALL. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCT CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette t
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 i
l em 91
TITLE:
Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and
-Other Issues CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on NRC's tentative approach to making further amendments to its uranium mill tailings regulations. The contemplated rulemaking proceeding is intended to incorporate groundwater provisions and other requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency for similar hazardous wastes into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act,
~
and consequently no alternatives to this action need to be considered. Comments on the ANPRM wil1 help define the nature and scope of the action. EPA has estimated that compliance with their
~
groundwater standards and-with the stability, radon release., and other requi~rements recently promulgated will cost the industr.y from about $310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees in the interim. NRC resources and schedules.are still being developed.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 48425 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 11/26/84 49 FR 48425 ANPRM Comment Period End 01/25/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 v.t . 3, u. 4 F_ob: /986'
e e
e e
e ' e RULEMAKING AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED 1 -
I l
9
/
f -
[
"'./
I e j
l 1
Federal Register / Vol. 40. No. 228 / Monday. November 28.1984 / Proposed Rulds . 46425 I
Ground Water Protoceen and Otner leaues asancT: Nuclear Regulatory - -
Commission.
AcTeost Advanced notice of proposed
- rungmaking.
sussanaam The Nuclear Reguletory -
Comaussion (NRC)is ---' 5 4 -
further amendments to its arenium mill tailings regulations.'!)e future i
' rulemaking proceeding for which this notice is issued is pnmanly intended to -
! incorporate ground water protection l provisions and other requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency for similar hasardous westes into NRC regulations. This acnon is necessary to make NRC requirements similar to EPA standards as required by provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radianon Control Act.
saft: The comment penod empires January 25.1W45. Comments received after this date will be considered ifit is practical to do so but assursace of consideration may not be given except 6 as to comments received on or before this date.
-**= Mail comments to Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washingson. DC 20545.
Atiention: Docketing and Service Branch. er deliver comments to Room '
1121.1717 H Street NW Washington.
DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5.130 p.m.
l ,
weekdays.
I poa pusmesa nopensaanoes contract:
Robert Fonner. Office of Faecutive IAgal Director. telephone (301) est-eaet. or Kitty S. Dragonette. Division of Weste Management. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
. esem Federal Registee / Vol. 43. No. tas / hiondsy. November an. teos / Proposed Rules r====ason. Wesidngton. DC 21545. would then incorporete within NRC alternative proposals as routine i telephone (ast) 427 4315. regulattens elements of DNs SWDA licensing accons.
summasserant sapenanations& requarements already. imposed by EPA.
L Backgrousel se the Gesund Water Nuclear Angulatory r===- has and establish any further requirements today proposed medaScotases to its necessary for the NRC to have SWDA.
emisens mill talbags regulattens la comparable standards as ceued for by De SWDA requirements imposed by Appendix A to 10 CFR Port 40 for the Secuon N of the Atomic Energy Act of the EPA in its role published October 7 purpose of osaforudng them to generally 19H. as amended. See les FR 48stel were described by cyphenble standards prommigated by De Consussion considered further b EPA in that Notice as follows: ,
the Enviraa=aa'al Protecuon Agency revisions to Appendix A to conform it to "Cansistant with the standards EPA fEPA) on September 30.19e3 (see 48 FR the physical stabihty aspects of b EPA issued undes the SWDA for hasardous 48ese: October 7.1ses). Die advance standard, but dad not propose thest. The wastes (47 FR 3227&323as. July as. tes2)
- notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) EPA standard requires ht the Anal the standard for tailings pdes has two -
announces that the Commission is cover desagn prende ressonable parts:(1) A *pnaarf standard that '
considenna proposing further assurance of effective control"for one requires use of a hner designed to e modificanons to its regulations in to thousand years. to the extent reasonably prevent augration of hasantous CFR Part 40. to samefy certam pronsions achievable. and in any case. for at least substances out of the impoundment, and cf the Uranium MillTraihnes Radieuon 200 years? The EPA's numancal (2) a " secondary' ground water Control Act ofIg78 (UMTRCA) and longenty standard takes a dnfferent protection standard requinng,in effect, requests public comments on pertment approaca to stability than do the NRC -that any hazardous constituents ht issues and quesnons. requirements. In Appendix A. the NRC leak from the waste not be allowed to On October 7.1ss3. the EPA published established numerous prescnptive degrade ground water.N pnmary
. sen: rally appheable standards for the mquarements for spenfic design festa. ires standard applies to new pornons of new management of uranium and thonum in order to assure stability wnhout or exasang waste depositones.The byproduct matanal N standards were acuve mamtenance for an indefinite secondary standard applies to new and i dev: loped by the EPA in a umanner to penod of une followtng closure.De emeting portions. the point of -
seusfy the provisions of secnon 275 of EPA nale sets a perfor .ance standard co'apliance being at the edge of the the Atomic Energy Act, se amended, for a limited uma pened. In addiuon. the waste impoundment.N specific that for nonrediological hazards. the preamble to the EPA standard and the hasardou substances and standards "* *
- shall provide for the supportmg environmental evaluation concentremons (i.a. background levels) '
protocuon of human health and the indicate that the EPA consciously that defans aaaea-phance with the environment consistent with the considered the acceptability of relying secondary standard at each site will be
- standants requued under Subutie C of on acave maintenance to provide established for urenium mall tailings by I th) Solid Weste Disposal Act. as stability followmg closure and did not NRC and Agreement States.The SWDA am
- nded. which an applicable to such pechibit it Rather. the EPA standard rules. however. permit alternate hazards." To achieve this goal the EPA requires that for nonradiological concentration limits to be established included within its requirements hazards the need for acuve maintenance when they will net pose "* * 'a published October 7.1ss3. selected only be =an==t NRC's Appendix A - substanual present or potential hazard provisions from its regulations issued flatly prohibits any planned rebance on to human health or the environment" as under the Solid Waste Disposal Act active mamtenance. long as the alternate concentranon lisut WDA) by cross sefamacans the SWDA De Commission requests comments is not exceeded. N rule also allow i . .svisions. These specific provisuna are on whether it should delete or modify (sic)
- hazardous constituents
- to be l
ccw in effect and the NRC is addinonal provtstons of Append:x A exempted from coverage by the peartit ecnside:ing undertaking a rulemskang including presenpuve requirements for based on the same entenon. EPA which would clanfy its regulations by specafic dessen features which may not deternunes the alternate concentration including within them those SWDA be necessary to meet the EPA standard. standard or exemption under the requirements selected by the EPA for The preocnpave requarements a SWDA: EPA's concurrence would be appbcation to arensum and thonum mill quesuon include those for minimtzmg mquimd under the proposed standards teilings. upstream drainage arts. sitmg wnere for taalmss?
l The rulemaking under consideranon them is good wmd protecnon. re!anvely The EPA went on to further describe' w:uld also be intended to satisfy a flat slopes. mandatory vegetative or the pnmary standard, pnmanly .
requirement placed upon the NRC under rock cover. cabble size roci. high quality consisting of the hner design section se of the Atonne Energy Act of rock cover. and rock armonr.g The requirements. and clarify the secondary 1954. as amended. to "* *
- meure that Commuasion also considerec selaung ' standard, by sayuss-the management of any byproduct the prohibiuon on rebance on acuve -
"The prunary standard. 40 CFR matsnal * *
- is carned out in such mamtenanca, modifyms Catenon 3 264.221. can usuelly be sensfied only by.
m:nner as confonas to general mandanns below grade disposal as the usmg liner matenals (such as plastics) i requirements established by the pnme opnon. and delenng the that can retam all wastes. Exemptions Comuussion. with the concureence of the requirement for background radium permitting use of other liner materials (EPA) Adnuanstrator, wiuch are. to the concentrations in cover matenals. Relief (such as clay) that may release water or m:ximum extent precusable. at lesst from these retained provisions is small quantities of othat substances or, c:mparable to requirements applicable available through esse-bv-case in some cases. peruuttrag no liner may is the possession. transfer, and disposal proposals by licensees as noted in be granted only if magrauen of cf similar hazardous matenal regulated proposed addinons to the introducues hazardous consutuents mio the ground by the Administrator under the Solid of Appendix A of to CFR 40. N water or surface water woeld be j Weste Disposa! Act. as amended? De Commission seeks comment on whether prevented mdefinitely * * * " - -
rul2 making under consideranon. which this is sufficie st flexibility tn new of the "Under these standards. a!! new j is the pnmesy subject of this ANPRM. Commission's intent to consider waste storage areas (whether new '
i
Fodsent Register / Vd. es. W. 22s / Monday. Rvember.28. toes / PropoaId Rules 46d27 waste facilities or ==paama=ts of exisung and the following sections of the SWDA 1954. as amended. Consistent with that paes) are subject to the primary regulations: authonty and in accordance with standard- the liner requirement. If new i.Sebpart F: section Mc. of that Act, the Commission wastas are added to an enisting pile. 40 CFR 284.91 Required programs has the discretion to review and bowever, the pile must comply with the 40 CFR 284.35 Potat of comphance approve site specific attematives to secondary standard-the hasardous 40 CFR 284.38 Compliance pened standards promulgated by the conentment concentration standards for to CF1284.87 General groand water Commission and by the Administrator of beelth and environmental protection. monitonag requirements ee Environmental Protection Agency.la Whether for a new or existing pile. If the 40 CFR 244.se Detecton monitonag the exercise of this authonty. section secondary standards are found not to be program 44c. does not require the Commission to satiaSed and subsequent corrective 40 CFR 294.se Compliance monitonas program obuin es concurnace of ee acnona fail to achiewe compliance m a Admanastrator in any site specific reasonable time. the operator must ii. Subpart C:
cease depositing waste on that pi!s.,,
attemative which sausfies Commission
' 40 CFR 284.117 Post. closure care and requirements for the level of protecuon Also in its October 7.1983 Nouce. the use of property EPA stated that "pA e responsibihties for public health, safety, and the
- til.Subpart K: environment from radiological and to establish standards under section 206 e CFR m.228 him and ' nonradiological hazards at uraruum ad!
l C
{',",'",,'fg"g ]," inspecnon (of impoundment liners), as tailings sites. As an example. the applicable secnons of the SWDA regulauons: Commission need not suk concurrerce 40 CFR 2s4.228 Closure and postclosure of the Administrator in case.by case L Subpit F--
care. as applicable. determanations of allemative to CFR 284.s2 Ground water prctection The above quotations from the EPA's standard concentranon limits and delisting of October 7. tssa Notice serve to clarify hazardous constituents for spectfic sites.
4 za as c n ents the substance of EPA's standards the it should be understood that the pr powd confomung mgulations deal (These thru sections are modified and the and l e na sco adopted as i 192.32(a)(21) * ****" * " " ' "'
of the rulemaking the NRC is herein
' 40 CTR 264.100 Corrective action considenns undertaking. The NRC has "P'" ***d""'"* *
- program reviewed the language quoted and. wtth Aminic Energy Act @S4. soleh as .
-(This secton is modified and adopted as the exception of the tunedictional mgards uranium adl tadings sata and i 192.33) concerns discussed in the following have no broader connotanon.
ii. Subpart C: secuen. believes it to be factually The Commission believes that 40 CFR 294.111 C1csure performance ccrrect and a fair represeniation of the licensee proposals for alternatives can standard issus addressed. be an important and effective way to (This secuen le adopted as part of deal d b pmh associaW II. Commission Authori,ty and with implementing the new EPA i 192.22(b)(1)) epa.u standards. The Commission expects that hi. Subpart K:
Section 44c.of the Atomic Ene*gy Act it may require several years to have its l 40 CFR 264.21 Design and operstmg states that: A !.icensee may propose ~
mquaremnts for surface conforming regulatons fully in place. It altamauves to specific requirements expects to use the flexibility provided unpoundments adopted and enforced by the l ,
by secnon 44.in the intens to consider secnon is modified and adopted as Comunission under this act. Such 2.22ts)(1)) and approve alternative proposals from alternauve proposals may take into licensees. Secuan 84c. provides NRC
,,NRC's responsibilities under account local cr regional conditions, INTRCA are to implement EPA,s meluding geology. topography, sufficient authonty to independently standard and to ** * *tnsure that the hydrology and meteorology. The eman so ong as ee
[ppmv , , ,
management of any byproduct Commission may treet such attematives material *
- is earn. d out m sui h a se satistying Commission requ:rements determmauon.
manner as * *
- conforms to general if the Commission determmes that such III. Issues for Public Commenta requirements established by the alternauves wtll achieve a level of Commission with the concurnace of the' stabilizanon and contamment of the The NRC requests public comment on Adatrustrator. which are, to the sites concerned. and a level of the general quesuon of how best to maximum extent practicable. at least protection for public health, safety. and proceed to fulfillits responsibiliues comparable to requirements apphcable the environment from radioloeic.1 and under the Atomic Energy Act. with to the pomssion. transfer. and disposal nonradiological hazards associated with respect to establishing SWDA.
of sunilar basardous matenal regulated such sites. which is equivalent to. to the comparable requirements for the by the Adamsstrator under the SWDA. extent practcable. or more stnngent management of mdl tatimgs, to the as amended / EPA will insure that NRC's than the level which would be achieved maximum extent practicable. In this regulaeons satisfy these adroonstions by standards and requtrements adopted context. comments are requested on through its concurrence role. Relevant and enforced by the Commission for the choices and decisions the NRC must l
SWDA regulauens are those embedded same purpose and any final standards make concenung issues and scuons that l
in Subparts A (except Secnon 264.J!. B. promulgated by the Adnurustrator of the are withm its discretion. Comments on l C. D. E. F. C. H. and K. Emamples of Environmental Protection Agency m the basic value, validity. lawfulness, or I areas which NRC must address m accordance with secuan 175. eppropnateness of the EPA's SWDA l dischartmg these responsibihues The Commission histoncally has had regulanons. the SWDA. or the INTRCA mvolve funcuans under the six sections the authonty and responsibtlity to are not requested.
Listed immediately above which are regulate the acuvities of persons
- incorporated mto these EPA standards, bcensed under the Atomic Energy Act of l
t gag Fedssal Ragisese / C/ol. 43. No. 23s / Monday. Novestber an.19e4 / Proposed Rules ,
A. TennesseMIC4PreecUnrCroimd A lasses andQueshans (a) How dessued should NRC's -
WearAssecess . ' The NRC seeks pubiac impet with mguladoes k and what sheeld tad De NRC has developed a tentative respect to su aspects of the queenas of obeeld not be squad la ames wh as
! cypreach to place SWDA oomparable how best to fulfill its moyensibihees we conses and sample ;
requmment la la regulattses. bened es under secace 275 and 84 of the Atannic Y" Energy Act of 1384. as amended for enmee and seasonal background plename and development eSern t protection of ground water.The NRC u n nosa manaan esaducted to date.nis approach is tentsove. and is made a part of eis also seeks public comment with respect y pubbc a==========r se eforts spent ta to the foDowing taeum and questions (la ,gp;g,,, y g providing pubhc comment might be better smeed. h involves the peding public comment. osmaesters am mquested to pmvide te base a ]
Me whawant mam te E development of addimens to NRC fact for any opimons e5eralor >
' regulations (either a block insert at the asunions madeh pede 6 maamental (1) Should ee SWDA compareWe impaa We anisadenas es manam i, and of to CFR part e or perhaps by of the requiminents oder consadoratia 1.
creation of a new part 41) which would requirements to be placed in NRC regulah h uplicitly mend 2 some d widch have already been metain te enum se d SMA. precisely dupheats EPNs language. or imposed by DA and m efectinf!!
compamble rage mments. supporting enviromental evaluations are should substantive requirements be De additions would be organized in pmphrued? aseded for SWDA comparable rule terms of design. operenas. doeurs, and (2) Should au of Subpart F be changes except for the requirements
, post closure regenrements, and would to included? What should not be included? already imposed by the DA. should the
- the fuDest extent feasible. be a cosiplete (3) What should be included is a NRC sostanee to ,. 2 with only a j s
- stement of the requirements without lisung of hasardous construents for eniD smale rulemakine to establish a complete reference to epa requirements in Title taihngs to aplace the 275 itas ions inst set of SWDA comparebie requirements?
l 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In in Appendix VUI to 40 CFR part m (10)Is the Sexibthty cited in the this way. the regarements could be reimaced in to CFR 2es.es? Shoehl proposed addison to the inseductima of stated la a self contained, uni 8ed constituents not usaally present or not Appendix A 10 CP1 port 40 sufBcient er 4 mesmer ta one place. Coverage would pasent above trace levels be sciuded? abould the NitC develop and include at leem the SWDA requiremente What entana should be appbed to additional modiSceneas to to .
already imposed by EPA (41. CPR decade what consotuents should be the physical stability espects of the DA i 284.92 44. 294.10tL 254.111. and 254.2211 included? staMand?
I and appropnate pertions of the SWDA (4) The NRC must estabhsh SWDA.
requarements mentioned by the EPA contparable requirements to the W Subketsla to CFR Put a cmplicitly as "emamples of areas which maximum extent practicable. la tits Government contracts. Hazardous .
NRC must address"(these indude to context. what is practicable given matenal--transportanos. Nuclear CFR 284.ss es. 284.117,204.22I, and current practica and the current sta'.e of matenals. Penalty. Repornas and
+
286.228). technology? recordheepmg requirements. Source ,
The rulemaking beeg considered for (S) Should NRC mtain the basic matenal. and Uranium.
l proposal by the NRC may naciude most sequence embodied in Subpart F where Desed at Washangton.DC. the ah day of cf Subpart F (40 CFR 284J0-tool. due to licensees who detect smund weter hvember teet.
the does relenooshtp and contanunation progress through a For the & clear Regule tory Commanenes, interdependency of the separate graduated scale of action. from sammet I. Chilk.
provimons, and because all but 40 CFR detection monitorms. through secremry efde cosinuassa I 284.SEL "Appbcababty." is etbr enposed compliance monstonng, and on to ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
cr mentioned as an example by the EPA. corrective action. with sigruficant time m,,,,,,,,,. ,
o ,,, ,, ,,,, ,, ,, ,s., , , , ,
deiers siiowed between ste,s white
- * ' d
, 3) D E. d d o a wed n implemected? 10 CFR parts 50 and as Would it be advisable, precucable or e ng a p salto appropnate to require. for example, that who Operstor's Uoensee and Cordorming would need to be incmponted m NRC a cenem an anm nt compliance monitorms programs that regulauons to estabhsh NRC asesev: Nuclear Regulatory requirements which are to b maximum are automatically activated and -
, implemented when needed? Commission.
j extent pracucable. at least comparable (el Should the basic SWDA scheme acTeose Proposed rule.
, ts the EPA a SWDA requirements for for the tmung and dureuon of a j similar hazardous matenal. compliance" pened. a " closure" penod. ,uesasany: The Nuclear Regulatory In developing thaa proposal the NRC and a " post-closure care" pened be Commission is proposing to amend its would distingwah between substanuve maintamed? What modifications.' regulanons to (1) danly the regulations reqmrements and DNs procedural deletionE edditions should be made? for the issuance of licenses to operstars peruuttma requirements because it does (7)To what extent how. and under and senior operators:(2l revise the '
not beheve the UMTRCA mandate what condanons should leak deteccon requirements and scope of wntten i requires the NRC to adopt anf portion of systems under single. liner examinauons and operating tests for i the procedural permitung aspects of impoundments be allowed to fulS11 the operators and senior operators.
EPNs regulations. The NRC's requirements for a detection monito..ng indudmg a requimment for a simulation !
! estabhshed procedures for licensing. program that otherwise requires a facility: (2) codify procedures for the .
! inspecuen. and enforcement would be morutonag well in b uppermost administration of requalineation used with respect to amplementation. aquiferf exammanons; and (4) desenbe b form ,
j
. CF .g 4
ano
- -i =* -
Proposed Rules- vei. s u Wedmeeder. leauary 14. toss 4
may be examined at the NRC public ftis amenen W sie MIDSUd. REGstem Document Room.1717 H 5treet NW.
sonouns nosess a ses mass et sin Washington. D.C.
yeemed emance of sWee m'8 N h 88** * * ** "'**** pea pusmesa esposenations contract:
Robert Fenner. OtSce of the F.necutive DM f semane pier is
,,',' ,w,
- v. essenen a e ens legalDnctor.on(astleet asst.er ICtty 5. Dragonette. Dmsson of Weste
. name. Management on (301) 492-430tL US
- Neelear Regulatory Commission.
I / Washington. D.C. 20585.
Desed at weshnestos D.C. ahne tttk day of lemearysees.
- For the Nedleet Regulasery Cemensseen.
Samuell.ChiEs.
secreamryofshe commission.
CFIl Port og (FR Dec. eMasr Fusd 2-tMs. 8:48 aml -
i
' anaam emme rumme*e
' i Uranlula M TaAngs Regidenest .
Ground Water Presseeen and Oster leepet hensef:Neclear ftegulatory Comanesion.
menose Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking: extension of comment perted-sumassaarv: On November 28.1984 (49 FR 4e435) the NRC pubushed for public .
comment an Advanced Notice of Proposed P=1==aMag indicating that the NRC is oensulering further ==== hts to its eranium min tailings regulanons to incorporate ground water protection provisions and other requirements established by DA for similar hasardous wastes into MLC regulations.
The comment perted for & proposed rule was to have empired lar.uary 25.
1985. A aussber of commenters have requested an exteeston of the comment penod. la view of the importance of the
- M rule, and the desire of the Commassion to allow au pa-nes to fully empfwee their views. the MlC has deaded to extend the casument penod.
The extended comunent now expires on March 1.1ses, saTas:The comment pened has been entended and now expires March 1.
. 1985. Comments received after thas date '
will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of cortsideration cannot be given except as to comments received before this date.
annamaana. 3,gd wriggen cEpaments er sugeenons to the Secretary of the
,, Commission. UA Nuclear Regulatory Comuntasion. Wasiungton. D.C. 3s55.
Attention: Dockenne and Service Branch. Copies of comments received
e o
e e
e e
e gy S3 .
TASK LEADER EVALUATION l
?
i 1
1 1
/
/
I .
/
% 0 G.#
1 1
8.5
- i BACKGROUND REFERENCES Documents relating to this rulemaking include the following:
- 1. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended.
- 2. . SECY-83-523, " Proposed' Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" December 28, 1983.
- 3. SECY-83-523A, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523)", February 3, 1984.
- 4. Memorandum for the Comissioners from Dircks, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523 and 523A)", Ma,rch 2, 1984.
- 5. Memorandum for the Commissioners from OGC, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523 and -523A)", March 14, 1984.
. 6r Memorandum for the' Comissiorters froni the' Chairman, " Tentative.
Recomendations Concerning Mill Tailings Resulting from Meeting on April 19,1984",' April 20,1984. *
- 7. Memorandum for Dircks from Chilk, "SECY-83-523/523A - Proposed Amendments .
. .to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", July 10, 1984.
- 8. Memorandum for Chilk from Rehm, "SECY-83-523/523A - Proposed Amer.dments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Policy Statement", July 25, 1984.
- 9. Memorandum for Dircks from Chilk, "Comission Action on Uranium Mill l Tailings Regulations", November 2, 1984.
- 10. FRN 49 FR 46425 dated November 26, 1984.
- 11. FRN 50 FR 2293 dated. January 16, 1985.
NOTE: Items 10 and 11 are included as B.2. Other doeurents are available in the files if desired. In view of the reassessment and supplement to follow, the other documents were not provided.
9
- 9 of e
B.6 e
4 9
e EDO REOUESTED INFORf% TION p 4 e
- e e p e
e 9
None e
4 e
I NMSS OFFICE FINDING ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING 1 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Groundwater Protection and Other Issues
- 1. Issue The companion rulemaking for uranium mill tailings does not incorporate the ground-water provisions imposed by EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 192.
Additional modifications to Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 may be '
appropriate to assure that NRC regulations for mill tail.ings are fully comparable to EPA's requirements for similar hazardous wastes.
- 2. Need-The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA)~as amended contains twc mandates. One is to cor. form to the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192. Conformance was to be completed within 6 months after final '
EPA standards were issued (i.e., by April 1, 1984). The companion
- rulemaking is based s ' olely on this mandate but only partially fulfills it since the ground-water provisions are not included. The second mandate.is
~
more general and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable to requirements EPA follows for its permitting program for similar hazardous material. EPA incorporated some of its i
permitting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but
, left' to NRC discretion which additional requirements might be appropriate.
Licensees are faced with two sets of regulations for ground water and NRC has not fully' responded to either mandate.
- 3. Alternatives A range of alternative approaches to rulemaking are possible from a simple incorporation by reference to 40 CFR 192 for ground water to the _
development of a new part that would be a total rewrite of existing NRC l and EPA regulations. The new part could include covering uranium recovery l activities not specifically addressed by current regulations (e.g., in situ operations) and comprehensive new requirements based on EPA's full range of requirements. Initial plans a year ago were to follow.
i an approach somewhere between these two extremes, but closer to the comprehensive new part than the simple incorporation by reference.
l The current state of the domestic uranium incustry and projected outlook have prompted a reassessment of the best approach for rulemaking. Poor market conditions, over-production, and cheaper foreign imports have resulted in a strong downturn in uranium production needs. Only a-few mills remain in operation. This downturn in production means a corresponding downturn in licensing activity. No new conventional sites are anticipated and the regulatory focus will be on interim stabilization i .
_ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ . - . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _,_ _ _._ _ _ ,. . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ ,
and decommissioning. Both the Division of Waste Management and Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) in Denver, are examining the industry outlook and working to define our long-term regulatory strategy for uranium recovery.
A comprehensive rulemaking would involve considerable resources ('several FTE over a period of 3-4 years). The usefulness of new' regulations or t
major revisions may have diminished to the point where less formal 1 1
implementation guidance may be more appropriate, at least for the foreseeable future. The legal climate also remains uncertain. .Both ,
industry and environmental groups have pending lawsuits against the EPA standards. Their suits do not impact our legal responsibilities, but they do reflect the controversial arena facing the rulemaking.
Three specific alternatives are under staff consideration: ,
- a. Fulfill the conformance mandate by a s.imple reference in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 to the ground-water standards in 10 CFR Part 192.
Guidance documents would be developed to solve problems such a
- reference would cause. For example, ha'rd to.get cross-r'eferenced EPA
- rules as codified January 1,1983 would need to be provided and -
maintained. Guidance on other aspects to clarify minimum requirements, functional responsibilities, retrofitting guidance etc.
would also be prepared. Any action to develop additional ,
. discretionary regulations would be deferred indefinitely. -The second Congressional mandate contains oc '9me frame and refers to general requirements not regulations.
- b. Fulfill the conformance mandate by inserting the clearly l nondiscretionary ground-water provisions of the EPA standard in 40 CFR 192 and referenced standards. This alternative would eliminate the need to refer to two sets of regulations.
Implementation guidance would still be needed and developed but the amount needed would be reduced. Development of. discretionary regulations would also be. deferred indefinitely under this alternative.
~
- c. Proceeding with development of new part as originally planned.
4 Proposed Action The extended comment period on the ANPRM ends March 1,1985. Analysis of comments and reassessment of the need reflected by the state of the industry will continue through February and March. After these efforts are complete, a decision on whether and how to proceed will be made. A supplement to this finding outlining the recommended course of action will be forwarded.
l
- - - - - - , , . - - . , - - - - - , , , , - - . , - - - - ---,- - - , - - ~ - , - , , , . , - . - - . . , , - - - - - _ , , - - , - - - - - - , - , --- - - . , - - - - , , - ,
. T 3 ,
- 5. Effects of Proposed Action Balancing the scope of rulemaking with licensing needs will result in the best use of NRC resources. The EPA standards are already binding on Commission licensees and NRC is obligated to implement and enforce them.
Thus no-reduction in protection of the public health and safety and the environment is involved in delays in determining current needs or in reduced scope of rulemaking. Reduced scope will only involve more case specific decisions on the part of licenseer and licensing staff. ,
- 6. Resources and Schedule To be developed when the rulemaking approach is selected. Assistance in value/ impact analyses to support decisions related to this rulemaking is being planned under an existing cotitract with Pacific Northwest
' The Office of Research is dev'oping agency-wide
" $)>v_aborctories.alue/ impact methodologies and is willing to negotiate this effort as a case study. Research needs experience not relating to reactors. Other contractual support on technical matters such as aquifer restoration. will '
tm needed whether guidance or regulations are dominant. Simple incorporation by reference (Alternative a.) can be completed in less than a year. A comprehensive effort would extend over 3-4 years (Alternative c.). Alternative b. would fall between.
b S
d
. . . ...e...,
b"5s
~
ga asag i T
s .. 4-RULEMAKING ISSUE (Notation Vote)
February 5,1986 SECY-- 8 6 -4 3 For: The Commissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED RULEMAKING " URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS:
GROUNO-WATER PROTECTION AND OTHER ISSUES"
Purpose:
.To request Commission approval to publish proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 40 to conform to the ground-water protection standards in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings.
Background:
Final EPA standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings were published in new Subparts 0 and E to 40 CFR 192 (see Enclosure C). The NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983
,' (Public Law 97-415) requires that NRC conform its tailings regulations to these final EPA standards.
The Commission is meeting the mandate to conform in two steps. The first step was completed with the publication of final rule changes October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852).
These final amendments primarily conformed to and incorporated the stability and radon release provisions of the EPA standards.
Contacts:
K.Oragonette, NMSS 427-4300 R. Fonner, ELD WM Project l 492-8692 W WZResp / 3rdJite Docket No. /
_. FDR /
LPCP/
16C& 6 T r2. x A OK&
k$ P')
SL l _
f Additional action that the Commission might take to amend its mill tailings regulations was the subject of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published for comment on November 26, 1984 (49 FR 46425)'(see Enclosure B). 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. 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 addressed each of the ten issues.
Commenters also repeated or referenced issues raised in t
comments submitted on the first step rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking notice in Enclosure A includes an overview of the comments and a summary of the issues
- resolved in the first step rulemaking.
Discussion: Federal legislation on uranium mill tailings contains two mandates. Pub.L.97-415 requires NRC to conform to the EPA
, standards in 40 CFR Part 192. The first step 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 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 the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). EPA incorporated some of its SWOA permitting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but left to NRC discretion which additional requirements might be appropriate.
Staff considered a range of alternative rulemakirig approaches. The proposed notice. includes a discussion of the altamatives considered under the heading " Scope of this Proposal." The. recommended approach is to complete conformance by inserting into 10 CFR Part 40 the clearly nondiscretionary ground-water provisions of the EPA standard found in 40 CFR 192 and its referenced standards, i An important factor in selecting this approach is the l current depressed state of the domestic uranium industry l and pessimistic projections on the future state of the industry by the Department of Energy (00E) and industry.
The severity of the depressed state of the industry was l emphasized by the latest 00E viability finding. On 1
-- - _ _ _ . , _ _ _ - . _ _ _ ~ - . _ . - _ _ . . - _ ~ . . _ . . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i September 26, 1985, the Secretary of Energy informed the President that the uranium industry was not viable. In the absence of license applications for new conventional I uranium mills, the regulatory focus will be on interim stabilization, decommissioning, and reclamation.
Application of the ground-water provisions of 40 CFR '
Part 192 to existing sites will involve site specific decisions. In the staff's view these site specific decisions would not likely benefit greatly from generic rulemaking.
Further,.the staff believes that a stable regulatory framework is important in getting on with implementation and enforcement of the EPA standards. Staff also believes that the combination of conformed regulations, policy and guidance, and license conditions can adequately meet the mandate to be comparable with EPA's SWOA requirements for the foreseeable future.
The discussion in the notice under " Content of this Proposal" includes the objectives the proposed modifications are intended to meet and an explanation of exactly which provisions are included and why. The objectives include: 1) preserving the traditional EPA and
,NRC roles and 2) developing a regulation that is self-contained and reflects the Commission's position that EPA site specific concurrences conflict with Commission authority and responsibilities. Application of the stated objectives and a careful reading of the EPA standards results in the proposed modifications to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. The modifications include changes to the Introduction, to Criteria 5, 6, and 7 and the addition of a new Criterion 13.
The proposed' modifications incorporate all of the standards staff believes were imposed by EPA with one exception.
40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v) would limit NRC's authority to make decisions on site specific alternative concentration limits and on site specific findings that a detected constituent frca the waste is not a hazardous constituent. Because the Commission has already stated its view that EPA exceeded its authority in so limiting NRC action, and because the limiting conditions can be misconstrued to apply to all'alterna:e concentration limit cases, the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 40 do not include 5192.21(a)(2)(iv) and (v). The staff considers this issue a procedural one, rather than a matter of health
and safety or environmental protection. NRC and EPA staff agreement on implementing guidance should provide a practical method of resolving this procedural aspect of 40 CFR Part 192. However, this issue is unresolved at the present time and is so-presented in the proposed notice.
EPA concurrence is not required for the action proposed in the notice since the changes reflect nondiscretionary requirements already imposed by EPA. EPA will likely submit comments on the proposed rule as they did on the ANPRM and the first step rulemaking.
Recommendations: That the Commission:
- 1. Approve publication of the proposed rule changes to 10 CFR Part 40 as set forth in the draft Federal Register Notice in Enclosure A.
- 2. In order to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 605(b)] certify that the proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is summarized in the enclosed Federal Register. Notice t (Enclosure A) under the Regulatory Flexibility Certification heading.
- 3. Note:
- a. Licensee compliance with Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR Part 192 is an existing requirement and the proposed regulations essentially incorporate
, specific requirements in 40 CFR Part 192 into NRC i
regulations. The proposed rule includes an overview of the impacts of the EPA standards being incorporated and generally discusses the economic and other factors that would be addressed in a Regulatory Analysis. (This action does not meet the test for a comprehensive analysis.) The overview generally relates economic costs to the benefits expected from compliance to the standards.
~
- b. The proposed rule includes a finding of no significant environmental impact. The basis for this finding presented in the proposed rule includes the nondiscretionary nature of the ee
action and existing documents. The staff has not prepared additional environmental analyses and does not believe that additional environmental review would be productive or beneficial.
- c. That the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
- d. That-the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Er.ergy and the 4
Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the-Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the i House Committee on Government Operations will be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure E.
- e. That Rep. Samuel Stratton, Chairman of the House Procurement and Military Nuclear Systems Subcommittee, will also be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure E.
- f. That this proposed rule contains modifications to information collection requirements subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and that Office of Management and Budget approval is being requested.
- g. That a Public Announcement such as Enclosure D will be issued on filing of the notices with the Office of the Federal Register.
- h. That copies of the notice will be distributed to all Commission uranium mill licensees and copies i
i 6-will be provided to Agreement States for distribution to their uranium mill licensees.
D
/
r '.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A. Proposed Rule Notice
- 8. ANPRM C. EPA Standard D. Draft Public Announcement E. Oraft Congressional Letter
' Commissioners'. comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, February 21, 1986.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, February 14, 1986, with an i
information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE OI OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD l ACRS ASLBP r ASLAP SECY '
l -
N e
PROPOSED RULE NOTICE e
ENCLOSURE A 1
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground-Water Protection and Other Issues 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 the ground-water protection regulations 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).
Comments 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.
AO 4 ESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Granch. Deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW. , Washington, DC between 8:15 am 1
[7590-01]
and 5:00 pm weekdays. Comments received on the Advance Notice of Pro-posed Rulemaking may be examined at the Commission'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, Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4300.
e SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background II. Overview of Comments in Response to ANPRM III. Summary of Comments on Specific Issues Listed in ANPRM IV. Issues Previously Resolved V. ; Commission Authority and Responsibility VI. / Scope of this Proposal VIII 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
- 8. Costs and Benefits of the Modifications
- 1. Synthetic Liners
- 2. Alternatives to Synthetic Liners .
I
,- . 3. Ground-water Monitoring
- 4. Alternate Concentration Limits 2 .
[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 I. BACKGROUND 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 0 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
[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 wa.s 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 SWOA regulations are not requested.
II. OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ANPRM 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
[7590-01]
addressed each of the ten issues. Commenters also repeated or referenced issues raised in ccmments 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 264.221) and considering all other provisions of 40 CFR 264 listed in the preamble to 40 CFR 192. All cate-gories of commenters addressed the general or overall approach NRC should take.
Industry commenters urged NRC to revise substantially the SWDA requirements to reflect the differences between tailings and other hazard-ous wastes and the isolated location of most tailings sites. Industry commenters also emphasized that tailings more closely resemble mining wastes 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 refere.nced arguments raised on the companion NRC_rulemaking that NRC .
should reject the EPA standards and undertake an independent new rulemaking 5
l
O wo-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 developed 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 conformance 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 254.
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 comment was requested on ten specific issues or questions.
Commenters 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 duplicate EPA's language, or should substantive requirements be paraphrased?
Mostlcommenters addressing.this point supported paraphrasing. One ...'
state urged maximum comparability with the EPA standards on both procedural i
6
L/bv0-uij and substantive aspects. EPA urged restatement except where administratively inappropriate.
Issue (2): Should all of Subpart F be included? What should not be included?
Industry suggested that Subpart F be changed in varying degrees to accommodate the differences between tailings and hazardous waste. EPA, an environmental group, and one state advocated incorporating all of Subpart F.
Others suggested including all substantive parts of Subpart F. Based on comments by all categories of commenters, whatever text is developed for insertion in NRC regulations needs to makr sense in general and make sense for application to tailings. Flexibility is a paramount concern.
Issue (3): What should be included in a listing of hazardous 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 included? What criteria should be applied to decide what constituents should be included?
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.
A trace amount approach for hazardous constituents was suggested by a number of comments. Industry suggested that NRC develop a generic list of hazard-ous constituents relevant to tailings and set concentration limits for each based on health and environmental effects of each. The diverse nature of 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.
7
, i75sG ur; 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.
Issue 4: The NRC must establish SWOA-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 creation 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 1
by the requirement for essentially immediate emplacement of thick covers which would inhibit natural dewatering.
i One commenter stated that it is practicable to establish the hydrogeological characteristics and attenuative properties at mill sites and to plan, conduct, and interpret ground-water monitoring. States stressed the importance of the site and impoundment design and construction and expressed reservations about primary reliance on a synthetic liner for ground-water protection. .One state listed three areas of questionable practicality: .(1) ability to monitor all 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VIII 8
L /c:su utj constituents, (2) corrective action to restore acuifers, 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 commenters 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 autcmatic triggers to avoid delays. One commenter expressed concern about the need to accommodate the large size of tailings impoundments in monitoring programs. One commenter 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 accommodate site specific circumstances;.
Issue (6): Should the basic SWDA 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 SWOA standards conflicts with the UMTRCA provisions for transfer to the govern-ment after stabilization. Industry also noted that the SWOA 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
[7590-01]
detectionofcontamination,leakdetectionsystemsaresubjecttofailure, 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, ete?
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 SWOA-comparable rule i
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 I set of SWDA-comparable requirements?
Three commenters recommended a. single.rulemaking. One state reemphasized the need for prompt NRC action. A state comment expressed I 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 camparable 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 SW9A-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 alternative ~s.
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 art the basis that.the . EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192 are valid and consistent with EPA authority with one 1
. 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 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) NRCcanapprovesitespecificalternai.ivestoNRCandEPAstandards proposed by licensees without EPA concurrence.
(5) Under section 274o(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. COMISSION AUTHORITY AND RESPONSI8ILITY A Commission statement on its authority and responsibility was included
! in both the proposed rule notice (49 FR 46418; November. 26, 1984)..and.the- - -
! ANPRM. The statement described the Commission's view of the flexibility I afforded under section 84c of the AEA and NRC authority to make independent site specific-decisions. The notice.of final rulemaking (50.FR_41852; ,.
f October 16, 1985) addressed the issues raised by commenters on the statement 13 3
[75?O-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.
"Section 84c. of the Atomic Energy Act states that:
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 pubife health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological harards 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- .
I ance with section 84c. of that Act, the Commission has the discretion to
, review and approve site specific alternatives to standards promulgated by 1
1 the Commission and by the Administrator of the Enviconsental .Pratection Agency. In the exercise of this authority, section 84c. does not. require
( 14 l.
[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 case determinations of alternative concentration Ifmits 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."
i i
VI. SCOPE OF THIS PROPOSAL -
I l The relevant Federal legislation on uranium mill tailings contains.two . .
I
( mandates. Section 275f(3) of the AEA (Pub.L.97-415) requires NRC to con-
! form 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 ,. ..
l fulfills it since ground-water provisions of the EPA standards were not l
15 i
[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 SWCA permit-ting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but left to NRC discretion which additional requirements might be appropriate.
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 referencing in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, the ground-water standards in 40 CFR Part 192.
Extensive guidance documentation would have to be prepared 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 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 would also be deferred under this alternative.
16 i
D590-01]
- 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 the 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
(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 00E 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 DOE annual finding on industry viability. On
. September 26, 1985, the Secretary of Energi informed the President that the uranium industry was not viable.. .-
- 17
u nu-01]
The poor outlook for domestic production means a corresponding down-turn in new facility licensing activity. In the absence of license appif-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 also minimizes use of NRC resources until EPA issues standards applicable to other mining and milling wastes. As discussed later in this section and under topic VIII, some of these wastes are currently not considered hazardous by EPA. Future 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 experisnce 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 develops and issues additional quantitctive 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 cover all the major regulatory principles in the SWDA rules. The l differences between the conformed NRC regulations and the EPA SWDA stand- ,
ards 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
L a ww v.3 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 has no specific deadline and '
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. 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 SWOA rules primarily apply.
( VII. COORDINATION WITH EPA The action proposed.in.this. notice is undertaken pursuant to section 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.
19
[7690-01]
For the reasons discussed in the previous section, the Commission considers it inappropriate to consider this rulemaking as requiring EPA concurrence under section 84a(3) of the AEA. The EPA has not yet promul-gated standards for "similar hazardous material" (i.e., mineral ore pro-cessing wastes) under the SWDA. The Commission. notes that some of these comparable solid wastes, including uranium mining wastes, are not considered hazardous under EPA's rules. See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
The Commission also 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 conformed 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.
4 20
Liosv vAj 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 Commission generally had the following objectives in mind:
- 1. Preserve the traditional EPA and NRC roles in which EPA issues general standards and NRC conducts the detailed implementation and enforcement pregram.
- 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 i
and site specific licensing decisions.
- 4. Develop a NRC regulation that is self-contained 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 21
c____ -
[7590-01; 1
uranium mill tailings context or to eliminate procedural cspects, guidance, explanations, and duplication.
- 6. Merge the thorium and uranium standards and generally consolidate i requirements by topic in Appendix A.
1
- 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 I
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 1
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 October 7, 1983 (48 FR 45942).
Subpart F i _
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.
I 22
[7590-01]
~
Subpart K 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operating requirements for surface impoundments.
EPA also indicated that the foll.owing specific sections should be addressed by NRC in implementirig the standards. The Commission will address these sections of EPA's regulations in guidance documents and site specific ifcensing decisions as needed.
Subpart F i
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 I 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 Part 40 contains general information, concepts, and clarificatic.: 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 l
portion, ground water, leachate, licensed site, liner, surface impoundment,.
23 i
[7590-01]
~
and uppermost aquifer are essentially quoted from 4O 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 UMTRCA.
In the earlier conforming action, a paragraph noting the dual regulations applicable to ground-water protection was added at the 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
! secondary ground-water protection standards for application during opera-1 ,
.i tions and prior to the end of closure. The primary standard is essentially l 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 aspects of the impoundment are ,
j also addressed. The specifics of the standard are contained in referenced
! 40 CFR 264.221(a)-(d).
Paragraph (a) of $264.221 and 40 CFR 192.32(a)'contain references to I -
! 40 CFR 264.228. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) states." ... except that at sites where
- the annual precipitation falling ort 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-.5264.221 do not apply..." The Commission considers this 24 i
- _ , , - - , - . ,- _..._--.-_.-..,.__,m._.___,,____,- _ _ _ . , - _ _ - - . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . , , _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . . - . _ _ _ _ - _ -
(7590-01]
reference to $264.228 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 the liner in the bottom of the impoundment. Thus it deals.with impoundment closure rather than impoundment operation. The standards for cover design in 40 CFR 192.32(b) prevail.
References to $264.228 in $264.221 provide options on liner design based on whether the liner will be removed at closure or not. Thus, they are essential to state completely the design standard and are paraphrased in the proposed modifications. Proposed paragraphs SA(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)(f) and (ii) supplement 40 CFR 264.92-264.94 for uranium byproduct materials.
Paragraph (a)(2)(1) adds the elements molybdenum and uranium to the list of hazardous constituents. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) adds radioactivity limits to Table 1 of 40 CFR 264.94. 40 CFR 192.41(a)-(c) provide for equivalent i
supplements for thorium when thorium byproduct materials are involved.
Paragraphs 5B(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 5C 25
(7590-01]
to Criterion 5 contains Table 1 of 5264.94 with the supplemental radioactiv-ity limits added. Proposed new Criterion 13 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-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 a.*d radium-228 and gross alpha activity (see 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(fi)) 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 Appendix 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 l
of 8 264.94(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."
The limits in $192.32(a)(2)(iv) were not intended as mandatory in all cases.
They define when the decis. ion on an alternate concentration limit would involve little or no judgement and they were added solely for the purpose - -
of allowing independent NRC action. Because the Commission believes that EPA exceeded its authority in so limiting NRC action and because the limiting conditions"cin be misconstrued to apply to all alternate concentration limit cases, the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 40 do not i~nclude 26
[7590-01]
$192.32(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 $192.32(a)(2)(iv). To emphasize its continued commitment to the policy, it is repeated in the proposed modifications. Performing practicable corrective actions would be a nomal part of applying the ALARA principle.
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 ano the listed factors to be considered. The proposed modifications clearly and explicitly limit NRC to site-specific decisfor.s. 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 proceed'ing 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 l
l sites. The Commission does not foresee the need to use the provision to delist detected hazardous constitusnts as provided in proposed paragraph 5B(3) l of 10 CFR Part 40. The flexibility in the EPA standard as reflected in proposed paragraph 58(2) of 10 CFR Part 40 should accommodate anticipated 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 piograms in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iii) are incorporated into the expanded monitoring 27
(7590-01]
requirements in the proposed addition to Criterion 7 of 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 exceeds the established limits. Paragraph 50 of Criterion 5 of 10 CFR Part 40 reflects the requirement for corrective action, the purpose of the program, and the required type of action to be censidered as it is outlined
- in 40 CFR 264.100. The proposed paragraph 50 of 10 CFR Part 40 also in-cludes the 18 month time limit imposed by 40 CFR 192.33'for corrective action programs. The 40 CFR 264.100 requirement for monitoring the effectiveness l
of the corrective action program is included in the proposed modifications to Criterion 7 of 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 si.te to a. ,
government agency for long-term care, l
. 28
[7590-01]
TheproposedadditionstoCriterion5of10CFRPartk0aredesignated as paragraphs 5A through 50 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 than a two word change in SE(4). " Toxic substances" is changed to " hazardous constituents" for consistency.
Section 40 CFR 192.32(b) prescribes s'tand'ards for application after the closure period to be used to design and develop closure plans. The closure requirements applicable to radiological. hazards were incorporated into Criterion 6 of 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 pro-posed addition to Criterion 6 of 10 CFR Part 40 adds the closure' performance standard in 40 CFR 264.111.
IX. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AMEN 0MENTS AND REGULATORY ANALY. SIS CONSIDERATIONS A. Finding of No Significant Environmental Imoact The Commission has determined under NEPA and the Commission's regulations 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 l
environmental impact statement is not required. The significant Federal action was the promulgation by EPA of its regulations on September 30, 1983.
l 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 l
29
[7590-01]
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-275b(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 environment-al 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 1
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 be 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 l .to the 40 CFR Part.192 Standards," NUREG/CR-4403.2 l
2 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,'OC 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.
30
[7590-01]
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.
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 summcry 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.
l l
l i
2 Copies of NUREG/CR-4403, NUREG/8R-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 l
copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington,.DC 20555.
i 31
LivsV VAJ Objectives - The proposed changes are intended to conform NRC's 1
regulations to the ground-water standards imposed by EPA for the protection 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 regulations was rejected in response to comments on the first step con-r forming 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. This flexibil-ity was explicitly acknowledged by additions to the Introduction 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 Ccmmission considers only site specific alternative i standards to those proposed for incorporation to be within its discretion.
l 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 f 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 contaminat. ion.'
32
f
[7590-01]
- 1. Synthetic Liners As provided in Criterion 5A(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.
Synthetic liners are a state-of-the-art component of uranium l tailings impoundments to minimize ground-water contamination caused by l
l leakage from tailings impoundments. Synthetic liners that are properly i
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 uranium 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 incu'rred at uranium mills constructed before 1977. Accuracies of cost estimates for liners at future sites are inherently limited by site-specific factors that affect liner costs, including liner type and 33
(7590-01] l characteristics, 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 cper-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).
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 l sites in the United States, the cost of synthetic liner installation in an I
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 construction I
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 co5ts based on site-specific factors including the actual size and number of impound-ments used. -
- 2. Alternatives to Synthetic Liners As an alternative to synthetic liner installation, Criterion 5A(1) provides licensees and applicants with flexibility to construct storage r impoundments for uranium tailings, provided that tailings constituents do not migrate into subsurface soils, geologic media, ground water, or surface 34
. - _ . _ . - - - . - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . , . . . ~ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ , - - . _ _ _
[7590 uu
. 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 comp'onents (e.g. , liners, embankments), contamiriated 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 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, I 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 or licensee can demonstrate to the Commission that a ccmbination of design,.
operation, and site characteristics prevents migration of hazardous constituents into ground water or surf ace water at any future time. This demonstration- should consider such . factors as the nature and. quantity of 1
wastes, alternate design features and operation practices,.hydrogeologic site characteristics, and.other factors that could influence the quality 35 e
t
[7590-01]
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 ,
cased primarily on site characteristics may only require additional 4 collection of site characterization information to supplement information contained in environmental assessments and licensing evaluations pursuant '
to Criterion SG(2). The incremental cost in this case would be limited to the additional costs of collecting more-detailed hydrojeologic 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 operational 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 beneffts 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 facilitier and the surrounding environment. The flexibility could also allow more cost effective options. As a potential secondary benefit of the liner exemption, Criterion 5A(3) may stimulate effective application 36
[7590-01]
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 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 compliancewith licensing conditions and preparation of environmental assessments. Ground-water monitoring costs may also be affected by site-specific decisions such as pursuing an exemption to the synthetic 37 l
c . _ - _ _
[7590-01]
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
$105,000 (1985). Sampling these wells semi-annually and analyzing samples for major and minor ions, inorganic hazardous constituents, radionuclides, 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 licensees 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 hazardous constituent does not pose.a present or potential hazard to humans or the environment as long as its t
concentration does not exceed this alternate limit at the point of compliance.
I The costs' associated with applicaticos for alternate concentration limits will vary based on site-specific f actors that determine information needs for the demonstration. Information needed to support applications I for alternate limits would draw heavily on information contained in environ-l mental reports and license applications. Because detailed site information is an existing requirment (see Criterion SG), justifications. for alternate. .. ,
concentration limits should only need to be supplemented with information 38
,,.____ ._.,_m._ . . . . - _ , . - , , __-~ . _ . . -:- - - - - < - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - +
[7590-01]
, 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.
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.
- 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 that 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 l
l 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 l
accumulation of. water in the stabilized impoundment af.ter closure _(i.e.,
bathtub effect). For example, a site in a humid climate may require a l
l 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 mobili:a-tion of nonradiological constituents.
39
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 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, cover 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 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 contaminat.fon at uranium mills for several years. The corrective action 4
programs required in today's amendments may substantially increase the l costs associated with ground-water protection at uranium processing l 40 I l n,,, , _ , . _ - - - - _ _ -. _ . , , , , . , . _ , - . _ . , _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , , _ _ _ _ _ . - , . . . .
[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 I site-specific factors such as the extent and type of contamination, volume of tailings, hydraulic and geochemical properties of the hydrogeologic l 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, l relocation of tailings, and aquifer restoration. (Note that the listed i
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 cost 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 I
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 enhanced or early dewatering of tailings or modifying the planned cover to add sealing. materials. .In addition to activities directly related to design and implementation of the corrective action programs, the program also incurs costs for detailed ground-water monitorint and evaluation of monitoring data to evaluate the affectiveness 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
[1590-01]
TABLE 1. COST COMPARISON FOR GROUNO-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 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-j' taminated ground-water plume extends from the upgradient side of impoundment j
to 500 meters laterally downgradient of the downgradient edge of the impound-I 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 market price of $44100 per MT; tailings are relocated to a disposal site (uncosted) within 9 kilometers of the original impoundment.
Note: Costs for uranium recovery facilities other than conventional mills (e.g., in situ evaporation ponds, heap leaching impoundments) would be consideHbTy"Tess 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 Te.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.
t 42
(7590-01]
the value of yellowcake produced depending on the type and extent of correc-tive actions.
C. Impacts on Other Requirements and Persons NRC and Licensee Staffina - 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 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 hais 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, 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.
( Memorandum of Understandina (MOU) With EPA - Negotiations on a MOU l
with EPA were initiated soon after the EPA standards were issued in October i
j 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 that time. Many of the original issues which were to be addressed by the MOU have been resolved and the main 43 4
o
e _- , _ - - , -- _ . - - - , - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
,-_.,.-,m_--_y_- . .._,--,,,.,,,,y--mvyg-,. -.wg--y =e---- -.,---=-.,.y .y =
7--_---__.
...? ub) issue that is left to be addressed is how NRC will establish alternate concentration limits'and to what extent EP.t ;ili be involved in those deci-sions. Work on the MOU was deferred by mutual consent in late 1984 pending l development of a generic methodology by NRC and EPA staff for evaluating i
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 4
- 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."
D. Implementation -
i t
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
) 44 1
1
, , . . - - wn--v--- , ,,,,~ ~, ---n-, -,,-r- ,,,w-w ------c,,e---- ~ - , - --- **~n---r--- , - - - ' - - - ~ - - - ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' = ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ " - -'
Colorado and pumpback systems by mills in New Mexico. Additionally four mills (2 in Colorado and 2 in New Mexico) have been added to tne 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 issuing license amendments on detection monitoring. Between April 22 and May 7, 1985, NRC issued amendments to its milling licensees r.at in the process
, of decommissioning. Subsequent to the issuance of the site-specific license l
l amendments, 11 of the 13 licensees requested hearings. The amendments 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 agancy 45
l procedures. NRC has also taken enforcement action'for viciation of the liner requirement in the. standard. The depressed state of the industry 1
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 opera +.ing. 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 impoundments. Approximately 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.
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.
46
[75aC N There are several' NRC Regulatory Guides that will be impacted by the proposed rulemaking. Draft Regulatory Guide MS-146-43 anc the corresponding Branch Position WM-81014, describe 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.
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 specific needs have been identified at this time other than the alternate concentration methodology discussed previously.
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, Ofrector, Division of Technical Information 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.
sRegulatory Guides are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW. Washington, DC Copigs Jf 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, DC 20013-7082.
47 -
[7590-01]
^
E. Relationshio to Other Existing or Proposed NRC' Recuirements 10 CFR Part 40 - 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 topics to the extent practicable.
SWOA Comparable Changes - The mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the AEA on comparability to SWOA requirements has been addressed previously. The Commission's regulations and licensing requirements will cover the basic elements of the SWDA regulations when the present action is completed.
The Comission does not consider detailed regulations necessary to accom-plish the AEA mandate. The Commission will continue to monitor 00F and industry assessments of the state of the industry, evolution of the ts.h-nologies associated with the SWDA regulations, NRC and State licensing experience, and EPA ground-water policy development and rulemaking for mining and similar wastes. Based on current assessments of the state of the industry, the need for additional rulemaking to accomodate applica-tions for new mills would probably be at least 5 years away. None of the other factors to be monitored suggest the need for Comission rulemaking l
any sooner.
Petition for Rulemaking - On November 30, 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission published in the Federal Register (47 FR 53089) a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Union Carbide 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 l tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal 1
sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the ground.waterr the earth i
Leasu-Olj cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the s'urface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on the mill. operator to cover the costs of long term surveillance. The petitioner believes that its l
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 the NRC Authorization Act of 1983 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 (S0 FR 41852), completed the first rulemaking action.
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-watt.r 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 confo'rm NRC regulations to EPA standards.
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 avilability of ground water for .
potable use in determining potentially deleterious impacts of tailings 49
(7590-01]
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 regu-lations 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" at .riginally set out in Appendix A 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 limited to the actions needed to conform these provisions to EPA's requirements.
. The petitioner suggested that Criterion 10 be amended so that a Z% 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 the2[annualrealinterestrateisamoreaccuratepercentagespread between inflation and interest rates. This issue is beyond the scope of the rulemaking actions necessary to confona NRC regulations to EPA standards and has not been addressed in either the October 16, 1985 final rule. or in this proposed rule.
50
[7590-01]
l When the NRC publishes its final rule on ground-water protection. l the rulemaking proceedings necessary to conform its regulations to EPA standards will be completed. At that time, the NRC will make a final determination on the issues raised by the petitioner and publish its findings in the Federal Register.
X. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT This proposed rule amends information collection requirements subject to the requirements of the Papemork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 ej sg .). Existing NRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 40 were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0020. This rule has been submitted to the Office oY Management and Budget for review and 1
approval of the paperwork requirements.
A L
XI. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepa nd. The basis for this finding is the nature of the licensees. Of.
the licensed uranium mills, only two qualify as small entities. Almost all the mills 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 51 l
[7590-01]
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 Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, the NRC is proposing the following amendments 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), 33,- 84, Pub. L.95-604, 92. Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, 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 52 -
[7590-01]
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.95-501, 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).
3 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 55 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (4),
l 40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued i'
under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
Appendix A to Part 40 is revised ta 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 enr of the
Introduction:
Introduction.***
The following definitions apply to the specified terms as used in this Appendix:
" 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.
53
-,,._.,-,,--,,------,-r.,
[7590-01]
l
" Closure" means the activities following operations t'o decontaminate and decommission the buildings and site used to produce byproduct mate-rials 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 l _
l location under the control of persons generating or storing byproduct materials under a Commission license.
" 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 consti' tuents, or leachate.
54 1
U500-0Q
" Point of compliance" is the site specific location in the uppermost aquifer where the ground-water protection standard must be met.
" Surface impoundment" means 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 which is not an injecti.on 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 SA-50 and new Criterion 13 incorporate the basic ground-water protection standards imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts D 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 M
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 (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 l
55
tinU-01]
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 strces 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 grhdients 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 require-ments of paragraph SA(1) of this criterion if the Commission finds, based on a demonstration by the applicant or licensee, that alternate design and operating practices together with site characteristics will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into ground water or surface water l at any-future time. In deciding whether to grant an exemption, the Commission will consider--
(a) The nature and quantity of the wastes; (b) The proposed alternate design and operation; 1
56 l
-~ - -.
L7590-01]
!(c) The hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the attenuative capacity and thickness of the liners and soils present between the impoundment and ground water or surface water; and (d) All other factors which would influence-the quality and mobility of the leachate produced and the potential for it to mig ste to ground water or surface' water.
5A(4)--A surface impoundment must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to prevent overtopping resulting from normal or abnormal operations; overfilling; wind and wave actions; rainfall-run-on; malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment; and human error.
5A(5)--When dikes are used to form the surface impoundment, the dikes must be designed,* constructed, and maintained with sufficient structural integrity to prevent massive failure of the dikes. In ensuring structural I
integrity, it must not be presumed that the liner system will function without leakage during the active life of the impoundment.
5B(1)--Uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed to con-J form to the following secondary ground-water protection standard: Hazardous
- constituents entering the ground water from a licensed site must not exceed the specified concentration limits in the uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance during the compliance period. Hazardous constituents are those constituents identified by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 58(2) of this criterion. Specified concentracion limits are those limits .estab- .
lished by the Commission as indicated in paragraph SB(5) of this criterion.
The Commission will also establish the point of compliance and compliance period on a site specific basis through license conditions and orders.
- 57
_.- . ___ _ _ _ , __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _._._2
Liivu-ulj The objective in selecting the point of compliance is to provide the ear-liest practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous
- constituents to the ground water. The point of compliance must be selected to provide prompt indication of ground-water contamination on the hydrau-l lica11y downgradient edge of the disposal area. The Commission must identify-hazardous constituents, establish concentration 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 constituents from the disposal area.
4 5B(2)--A constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to para-graph 58(5) when.the constituent--
(a) Is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the byproduct-material in the disposal area;
{ (b) Has been detected in the ground water in the uppermost aquifer; and (c) Is listed in Criter' ion 13 of this appendix.
5B(3)--The Commission may exclude a detected constituent from the set of hazardous constituents on a site specific basis if it finds that the constituent is not capable of. posing a substantial present or poten-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--
(1) 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 sur-rounding land; 4
58 l
L ovu ui;
'(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 4
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.
(b) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface water quality, considering --
(1) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site; (ii). The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and sur-rounding 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; .
(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; 59
[7b90-Ol]
(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.
58(4)--In making any determinations under paragraph.s SB(3) and 5B(6) of this criterion about the use of ground water in the area arcund the facility, the Commission will consider any identificaticn of underground sources of drinking water and exempted aquifers made by the Environmental Protection Agancy.
58(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.
SB(6)--The Commission will establish a site specific alternate concen-tration limit for a hazardous constituent as provided in paragraph 58(5) of this criterion if it finds that the constituent will not pose a sub'stantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded. In establishing alter-nate concentration limits, the Commission will apply its as low as- reason-ably achievable criterion in 10 CFR 20.1(c). The Commission will also
, consider the following factors:
I 60 P
[7590-uij (a) Potential adverse effects on ground water quality, considering --
(i) The physical anc chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site including its potential for migration; (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and sur-rounding land; (iii) T.he 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 wasta constituents; (ix) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
(b) Potential adverse effects en 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 ficw; (iv) The patterns of rainfall'in the region; (v) The proximity of the licensed site to surface waters; 61 '
[7590-01]
(vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water osality 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 d
physical s tructures caused by exposure to waste constituents; and (x) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
SC--MAXIMUM VALUES FOR GROUNO-WATER PROTECTION:
Maximus Constituent or Property Concentration Milligrams per liter Arsenic................................................ 0.05 Barium................................... ............. 1. 0 Cadmium................................................ 0.01 Chromium............................................... 0.05 Lead................................................... 0.05 Me r c u ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002 Selenium............................................... 0.01 S11ver................................................. 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, isomer)........................................
~
gamma 0.004 Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis (p-methox-yphenylethane)....................................... 0.1 Toxaphene (CsoH t oCls, Technical chlorinated cam- , - - --
phone, 67-69 percent chlorine)....................... 0.005 2,4-0 (2,4-Oichlorophenoxyacetic acid)................. 0.1 2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypro-
. pionic acid)......................................... 0.01 Picocuries per liter Combined radium - 226 and radium -228.................. 5 Gross alpha particle activity (excluding radon and uranium when producing uranium byproduct material or thorium when producing thorium byproduct materiel)............................................ 15 62
[7590-01]
50--If the ground water protection standards established under paragraph 5B(1) of this criterion are exceeded at a licensed site, a cor-rective action program must be put into operation as scon 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 operation, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The objective of the program is to return hazardous constit-uent concentration levels in ground water to the concentration limits set as standards. The licensee's proposed prograin must address removing the hazarocus constituents that have entered the ground water at the point of compliance or treating them in place. The program must also address rencving 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 corpliance 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 prov.ide 1
reasonable assurance that the ground-water protection standard will not be exceeded.
i -
, SE--In developing and conducting grcund water protection programs, i
applicants and ifcensees shall also consider the following-(1) Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic if ners are used, 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 the ground-water monitoring program conducted as provided in Criterion 7.
63
[7590-01]
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-sen"+ive tailings solutions and clay materials to confirm that no signifi-cant deterioration of permeability or. stability properties will occur with continuous exposure of clay to tailings solutions. Tests must be run for 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 not input of liquid to the tailings impoundment.
(3) Dewatering of tailings by procass 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 te 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 rust be graded to assure that the drains are at a icw point. The drains must be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system must also be 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 64
[7590-01]
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.
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 gradients and conductivities of the various formations must be determined.
This information must be gathered from borings and field survey methods taken within the proposed 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-contuities, fractures, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic conductivity. If field survey methods 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.
65
[7590-01]
SH--Steps must be taken during stockpiling of are to minimize pene-tration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of ore storage areas.
- 4. Criterion 6 is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of Criterion 6:
Criterion 6 ***
The licensee must also address the nonradiological hazards asso- 6 7
ciated with the wastes in planning and implementing closure. The licensee shall ensure that dispost.1 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 environ.nent, the license shall control, minimize, or eliminate post-closure escape of nonradiological hazardous constituents, '
leachate, contaminated rainwater, or waste decomposition products to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.
- 5. Criterior. 7 is amended by adding the followicq new par: graph at
-the end of Criterion 7:
Criterion 7 ***
7A--The licensee snail estabiish a detection monitoring program needed to establish the ground-water protection standards in paragraph 5B(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 66 a
(7590-01]
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 licenses in effect September 30, 1983, the detection monitoring programs I
must have been in place by October 1, 1984. For licenses issued after September 30, 1983, the detection monitoring programs must be in place when specified by the Commission in orders or license conditions. Once ground-water protection standards have been established pursuant to paragraph SB(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 ..
Criterion 13 -- Secondary ground-water protection standards required by Criterion 5 of this appendix are concentration limits for individual hazardous constituents. The following list of constituents identifies 67 m -
[7590-01]
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 byproduct material and has been detected in ground water. For purposes of this Appendix, the property of gross alpha activity will be treated as if it is a hazardous constituent. Thus, when setting standards under paragraph 5B(5) of Criterion 5, the Commission will also set a limit for gross alpha activity.
Hazardous Constituents Acetonitrile (Ethananitrile)
Acetophenone (Ethanone, 1 phenyl) 3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxycoumarin and salts (Warfarin) 2-Acetylaminofluorene (Acetamids, N-(9H-fluoren-2 yl)-)
Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride) 1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (Acetamide, N-(aminothioxomethyl)-)
Acrolein (2-Propenal)
Acrylamide (2-Propenamide)
Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile)
Aflatoxins Aldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-endo, exo-1,4: 5,8-D i methanonaphtha l e ne)
Allyl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol) '
Aluminum phosphide 4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,l'-Bipheny13-4-amine) 68 e
( 7590-C".]
6- Am i no- 1, la ,2 ,8,8 a ,8b- hexa hyd ro ( hyd ro xyme thy l )- Sa-me thoxy- 5-me thy l -
carbamate azirine[2',3':3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a] indole-4,7-dione, (aster)-(Mitomycin C) (Azirino[2'3':3,4]pyrrolo(1,2-a) indole-4,7-dione, 6-amino-8-[((amino-cabonyl) oxy) methyl]-1,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexa-hydro-8a methoxy-5-methy-)
5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol (3(2H)-Isoxazolone, 5-(aminomethyl)-) 4-Aminopyridine (4-Pyridinamine)
Amitrole (1H-1,2,4-Triazol-3-amine).
3 Aniline (Benzenamine)
Antimony and compounds, N.0.5.*
Aramite (Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl , 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester)
Arsenic and compounds, N.O.S.*
Arsanic acid (Orthoarsenic acid)
Arsenic pentoxide (Arsenic (V) oxide)
Arsenic trioxide (Arsenic (III) oxide)
Auramine (Benzenamine, 4,4'-carbonimidaylbis[N,N-Oimethyl , monohydro-chloride)
Azaserine (L-Serine, diazoacetate (ester))
Barium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Barium cyanide
- 8enz[c'] acridine (3,4-Benzacridine) j Benz [a] anthracene (1.2-Benzanthracene)
Benzene (Cyclohexatriene)
Benzenearsonic acid (Arsonic acid, phenyl-)
l
- The abbreviation N.0.5. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members j of the general class not specifically listed by name in this list.
l 69 l
6,.sw vi; Benzene, dichloromethyl- (Benzal chloride)
Benzenethiol (Thiophenol)
Benzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4' diamine)
Benzo [b]fluoranthene (2,3-Benzofluoranthene)
. Benzo [j]fluoranthene (7,8-Benzofluoranthene)
Benzo [a] pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene)
- p-Benzoquinone (1,4-Cyclohexadienedione) i 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-3)
N,N-Bis.(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine (Chlornaphazine)
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether.(Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[2-chloro-])
Bis (c'hloromethyl) ether (Methane, oxybis[ chloro-])
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis (2-ethyl-hexyl) ester)
Bromoacetone (2. Propanone, 1-bromo-)
Bronomethane (Methyl bromide) '-
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether (Benzene, 1-bromo-4 phenoxy-)
Bructrie (Strychnidin-10-one, 2,3-dimethoxy-)
2-Butanone peroxide (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)-)
70
-._ - - - _ - - - . __. . - -_ . - - . . . ~_ .--- _._ - - - . -._ - _ _..- .- _ __ __ _--
tissu v.;
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-)
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)
Chlorinated benzenes, N.O.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-a-crosol (Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl) i 1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane (Oxicane, 2-(chloromethyl)-)
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)-)
l Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-)
I Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) l Chloromethyl methyl ether (Methane, chloromethoxy-)
2-Chloronaphthalene (Naphthalene, betachloro-)
1 71
(ecsU ul) 2-Chlorophenol (Phenol, o-chloro-) '
1-(o-Chlorophenyl) thiourea (Thiourea, (2 chlorophenyl)-)
3-Chloropropionitrile (Propanenitrile, 3-chloro-)
Chromium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Chrysene (1,2-Benzpnenanthrene)
Citrus red No. 2 (2-Naphthol, 1-[(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl) azo]-)
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-0-Glucopyranoside, (methyl-ONN-azoxy) methyl-)
2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2-cyclohexy,-4,6-dinitro-)
Cyclophosphamide (2H-1,3,2,-Oxazaphosphorine, [ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]-tetrahydro ,2-oxide)
Daunomycin (5,12-Naphthacenedione, (85-cis)-8-acetyl-10-[(3-amino-2,3, 6- t r i de o xy )- a l p h a- L- l yx o- hex o py ra n o sy l ) o xy ]- 7 , 8 ,9 ,10 - te t ra hy d ro-6,8,11-trihydroxy-1-methoxy-)
000 (0fchlorodiphenyldichloroethane) (Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-)
00E (Ethylene, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (4-chlorophenyl)-)
00T (0ichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-)
72
[7590-01j Diallate (S-(2,3-dichloreallyl) diisopropylthiocartamate)
Dibenz[a,n] acridine (1,2,5,6-Oibenzacridine)
Oibenz[a,j] acridine (1,2,7,8-Oibenzacridine)
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-Oibenzpyrene)
Dibenzo[a.h] pyrene (1,2,5,6-Oibenzpyrene)
Dibenzo[a,1] pyrene (1,2,7,8-Oiben: pyrene) 1,2-Ofbromo-3-chloropropane (Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-)
1,2-Dibromoothane (Ethylene dibromide)
Oibronomethane (Methylene bromide) 01-n-butyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,-dibutyl ester) o-Ofchlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-)
m-Dichlorobenzene.(Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-)
p-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-)
Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S.* (Benzene, dichloro , N.O.S.")
3,3'-Ofchlorobenzidine ([1,l'-Bipheny13-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro-)
i 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Methane, dichloro'difluoro-)
1,1-Oichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
! trans-1,2-Ofchloroethene (1,2-Dichloroethylene)
Ofchloroethylene, N.O.S.* (Ethene, dichloro , N.O.S.*)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-)
Ofchloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2,4-Oichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-)
2,6-Ofchlorophenol (Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-)
. 73 ,
1
I
[7590-01]
2,4-Oichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-0), salts and esters (Acetic acid, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy , salts and esters)
Oichlorophenylarsine (Phenyl dichlorcarsine)
Dichloropropane, N.O.S.* (Propane, dichloro , N.O.S.")
1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride)
Dichloropropanol, N.O.S.* (Propanol, dichloro , N.0.5.*)
Dichloropropene, N.O.S.* (Propene, dichloro , N.0.5.*)
1,3-Ofchloropropene (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-Oiepoxybutane (2,2'-Bioxirane)
Diethylarsine (Arsine, diethyl-)
N,N-Diethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diethyl) 0,0-Ofethyl S-methyl ester of phosphorodithioic acid (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-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-Olethyl 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-Othydroxy-alpha-(methylamino) methyl benzyl alcohol (1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino) ethyl]-)
74
[7590-01]
Dilsopropylfluorophosphate (DFP) (Phosphorofluoridic acid, bis (1-methylethyl) ester)
Dimethoate (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino) oxcethy1] ester) 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1,l'-Bipheny1]- 4,4'-diamine, 3-3'-dimethoxy-)
p-0 dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-)
7,12-Oimethylbenz[a] anthracene (1,2-Benzanthracene, 7,12-dimethyl-)
3,3'-Oimethylbenzidine ([1,l'-Bipheny1]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethyl-)
Dimethylcarbamoy1 chloride (Carbamoyl chloride, dimethyl-)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl-)
1,2-Dimethy1hydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl-)
3,3-Oimethyl-1-(methylthio)-2-butanone, 0-[(cethylamino) carbony1]
oxime (Thiofanox) alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine (Ethanamine, 1,1-dimethyl-2 pnenyl-)
2,4-Dimethylphenol (Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-)-
Dimethyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester)
Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester)
Dinitrobenzene, N.O.S.* (Benzene, dinitro N.O.S.*)
4,6-Dinitro-o-crosol and salts (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-methyl , and salts) 2,4-Dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-)
2,4-Olnitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro-)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,6-dinitro-)
f Of-n-octyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyt ester) 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Olethylene oxide)
Diphenylamine (Benzenamine, N phenyl-)
l 1,2-Oipheny1hydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-)
i Di-n propylnitrosamine (N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine) i 75 j
[7590-01]
~
Oisulfoton (0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio) ethyl] phosphorodithioate) 2,4-Oithiobiuret (Thioimidodicarbonic diamide)
Endosulfan (5-Norbornene, 2,3-dimethanol, 1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro ,
cyclic sulfite)
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-Ethanedlyl-biscarbamodithioic acid, salts and esters)
Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)
Ethylene oxide (0xicane)
- Ethylenethiourea (2-Imidazolidinethione),
i 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)
Glycidy1 aldehyde (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-)
76
[7590-01]
Peptachlor 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-)
Hexachlorobutadiene (1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-)
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 (Cacodylic acid)
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (1,10-(1,2 phenylene) pyrene)
Iodomethane (Methyl iodide) 1 Iron dextran (Ferric dextran)
Isocyanic acid, methyl ester (Methyl isocyanate)
Isobutyl alcohol (1-Propanol, 2-methyl-)
Isosafrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-allyl-)
Kepone (Decachloroactahydro-1,3,4-Methano-2H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one) 77
_ - . - . . _ _ __ _--. =- .- _.
[7590-01]
Lasiocarpine (2-Sutenoic acid, 2-methyl , 7-[(2,3-dihydroxy (1-me thoxye thy l )- 3-me thy l ox ob u toxy )me thy 1 ]- 2 ,3 ,5 , 7a-tetrahydro-1H pyrrolizin-1 y1 ester)
' Lead and compounds, N.O.S.*
Lead acetate (Acetic acid, lead salt)
Lead phosphate (Phosphoric acid, lead salt)
Lead subacetate (Lead, bis (acetato-0)tetrahydroxytri-)
Maleic anhydride (2,5-Furandiane)
Maleic hydrazide (1,2-Dihydro-3,6 pyridazinedione)
Malanonitrile (Propanedinitrile)
Melphalan (Alanine, 3-[p-bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]phenyl ,L-)
Mercury fulminate (Fulminic acid, mercury salt)
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-Methylcholanthrone (Benz [j]aceanthrylene,1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-)
Methyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonochloridic acid, methyl ester)
- 4,4'-Methylenobis(2-chloroaniline) (Benzenamine, 4,4'-mett 'eneois-(2-chloro-)
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (2-Butanone)
Methyl hydrazine (Hydrazine, methyl-)
2-Methy11actonitrile (Propanenitrile, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-y-Methyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl , methyl ester) o 78
(7590-01]
Methyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester) 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde o-(methylcarbonyl) oxime (Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio) , 0-((methylamino)carbony1] oxime)
N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (Guanidine, N-nitroso-N-methyl-N'-
nitro-)
Methyl parathion (0,0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) phosphorothioate)
Methylthiouracil (4-lH-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-thf ourea (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 (Ethanamina, 2-chloro ,
N-(2-chloroethyl)-N-methyl , and hydrochloride salt)
Nitroglycerine (1,2,3-Propanetrial, trinitrate) 79 l
[7590-01]
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-)
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 (Carcamic acid, methy1nitroso , ethyl ester)
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Ethenamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosomorpholine (Morpho 11ne, 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 (Benzanamine, 2-methyl-5-nitro-)
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide (Diphosphoramide, octamethyl-)
Osmium tetroxide (Osmium (VIII) oxide) 7-Oxabicyclo[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-)
80
[7590-01].
Phenacetin (Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-)
Phenol (Benzene, hydroxy-)
Phenylenediamine (Benzenediamine)
Pheny1 mercury acetate (Mercury, acetatophenyl-)
N-Phenylthiourea (Thiourea, phenyl-)
Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride)
Phosphine (Hydrogen phosphide)
Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-((ethylthio)methy1] ester (Phorate)
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-[p-((dimethylamino) sulfonyl)pheny1]
ester (Famphur)
Phthalic acid esters, N.O.S.* (Benzene, 1,2-dicarboxylic acid, esters, N.0.5.*)
Phthalic anhydride (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride) 2-Picoline (Pyridine, 2-methyl-)
Polychlorinated biphenyl, N.O.S.*
Potassium cyanide Potassium silver cyanide (Argentate(1-), dicyano , potassium)
Pronamide (3,5-Ofchloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2 propynyl) benzamide) 1,3-Propane sultane (1,2-Oxathiolane, 2,2-dioxide) n-Propylamine (1-Propanamine)
Propylthiouracil (Undecamethylenediamine, N,N'-bis (2-chlorobenzyl-),
d1 hydrochloride) 2-Propyn-1-ol (Propargy) alcohol)
Pyridine Radium -226 and -228 Reserpine (Yohimban-16-carooxylic acid, 11,17-dimethoxy-18-[3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoyl) oxy] , methyl ester) 81
[7590-01]
Rescrcinol (1,3-Benzenediol)
Saccharin and salts (1,2-Senzoisothiazolin-3 one, 1,1-dioxide, and salts)
Safrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-allyl-)
Selenious acid (Selenium dioxide)
Selenium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Selenium sulfide (Sulfur selenide)
Selenourea (Carbamimidoselenoic acid)
Silver and compounds, N.O.S.*
Silver cyanide Sodium cyanide Streptozotocin (0-Glucopyranose, 2-deoxy-2-(3-methyl-3-nitrosaureido)-)
Strontium sulfide Strychnine and salts (Strychnidin-10-one, and salts) 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzeno, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin (TC00) (Oibenzo p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-)
Tetrachloroethano, N.0.5.* (Ethane, tetrachloro , N.O.S.*)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachicrethane (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,-Tet-achlorophenol (Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-)
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate (0f thiopyrophosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester)
Tetraethyl lead (Plumbane, tetraethyl-)
Tetraethy1 pyrophosphate (Pyrophosphoric acide, tetraethyl ester)
Tetranitromethane (Methane, tetranitro-)
Thallium and compounds, N.O.S.*
82
L/muu-ui; 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)
Thallium selenite Thallium (I) sulfate (Sulfuric acid, thallium (I) salt)
Thioacetamide (Ethanethioamidn)
Thiosemicarbazide (Hydrazinecaroothioamide)
Thiourea (Carbamide thio-)
Thiuram (Bis (dimethylthiocarbamoyl) disulfide)
Thorium and compounds, N.O.S.*, when producing thorium byproduct material Toluene (Benzene, methyl-)
Toluenediamine (Otaminotoluene) o-Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine, 2-methyl , hydrochloride)
Tolylene diisocyanate (Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-)
Taxaphone (Camphone, octachloro-)
Tribromomethane (Brosoform) 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-)
83
[7590-01]
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.O.S." (Propane, trichloro , N.O.S.*)
1,2,3-Trichlorooropane (Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-)
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-[eis(2-chloroethyl) amino]-)
Uranium and compounds, N.O.S.*
Vanadic acid, ammonium salt (ammonium vanadate)
Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium (V) oxide)
Vinyl chloride (Ethene, chloro-)
Zinc cyanide Zinc phosphide Cated at Washington, OC this day of , 1986.-
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
Samuel J. Cntik, Secretary of the Commission.
84
N O
AtlPR!!
+
een e
E.'lCLOSURE B
Federal Regleter / Vol. 49. No. 22s / Monday. November 2s.1984 / Proposed ties 44425 t
to CPN Part de Uranhast idW Teenge Regulationer oremad weser pressenen ene cener leouse aessev NuclearRegulatory ra m aavisse Adeemand pedes of proposed
. ru!r %
sueneaspriThe Nesleet Regulesery Comeusesse (NRC)la esendertas further amendements to its ureneum mill teillage residenses. The future rulemalung presseding for wh6ch this notice le isound la primanly intended to incorporate yound weser protection provtseems and ether requirementa established by the Environmeetal Protecties Agency for someter hasardous westee into NRC regulations. Thee
- ectros te neceeeery to mehe NRC requaternente camilar to EPA standards se required by proviesons of the Uren wn MillTailings Radiation Control Act.
sats: Tta comment period emperte January 25.1986. Canunente received after this date will be considetid if it is procrical to do so but soeurence of consideretton may not be given except l se to conumente recesved on or befott thre date.
assesseen Mail commente to t
Sectstery. U.S. NucJeer ReplaIory Conuniessen. Wsehangton. DC 20s84.
l Attention: Docheung and Service
} . Branch, or deliver commente to Room t121.1717 H Street NW Washington, DC between 413 a.m. and $2 p.aa.
weekdaye.
l Poe ruimene asemmattens eastfaett l Robert Anner.0See of Esecutive Legal
' Director telephone 13171) est-east, or l Kitty S, Drogenette. Dtviesen of Weste Maassement. U.S. Nucleat Repistory l ,e w - _ - . _ _
. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - - _ -.. . _ - _ - _ - _ - . - - - - - - - . - = _ _ - - - -
- 4g43 i Podesel ReWeest / Vol. 4s. No. 22s / hionday. November as.1984 / Proposed Rules i
1' Comeussee. Weekinsten. DC Eass, would then incorporete withm NRC attemative proposals se reatme telephone (3pt) 427-4556 r gulattona elements of DA's SWDA heensms acuana.
sussunserrano seressaaviess De reiuntements already unposed by DA.
Nuclear Regidenery f*- has and estabhsh any further requatements I. Sashgreemd es the Ground Water today pregesed modnSeatene to 6te neseenery for the NRC to have SWDA.
g, exieses med tenhage regeleeems la comparabie standarte as caued for by The SWDA requiremente imposed by Appemen A le le CFR Port 43 for the Section te of the Ateenc Emergy Act of the DA ta its role pubhehed October 7 purysse of confereung them to generally 1554. as amended. 1988 fee FR tassel were desenbed by applienbie seenderde promulgated by The Casurussion considered further the EPA in that Notice as follows:
the Emytronmental Protection Agency revistoes to Appeedia A to contoren it to " Consistent with the standards DA j (EPAl on September 31L 1933 (see 44 FR the physical stabthty espects of te DA issued under the SWDA for hasardous essek October 7.1ses). This advance standard. but dad not propose them m weates (4r FR 32276-32.34s6 July 2s. tas2l notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANPRM) EPA standard requires that me Saal the standard for taahase pues has two announces that the Commtesion is con er design provide reasonable parts (1) A *pnaary' standard that l considenne propeasag further assurance of effecuve control "for one requires use of a lmer assigned to j modificanone to its regulatione in 10 thousand years, to the estaat reasonably prevent migrauen of hasardous CFR Port toL ta causty certain provisions acaseveale. and in any case. for at least substances out of the impouadment. and of the Ursaiues Mill Treshage Radsenen 200 yeere? The EPA's numencal (2) a ' secondary' ground wetar Control Act of1973(LMTRCAl and longenty standard tahee e ddformat protecnon standard requattrug. La elfoct.
requesta pubuc comments on pertment approsca to stabi!Lty than de the NRC that any hasardous consutuants ht tesues and queenons. requirementa. In Appendas A, the NRC leak from me waste not be eBowed to On October T. tess, the DA pubhahed estabbened numerous preestipove degrade yound water. The pnmary genereuy applicable standards for the requirements for spen 8e desses festerse standard applies to new portions of new management of uteruum and thonum m oreer to escure stabthey without or eassung weste doyeestones. The byproduct matenei. De standards were ocuve maintenance for an Lade 6 nite secondary etendard applies to new and developed by the DA in a manner to pened of tune following closure. De exiseas pereens, the potat of senofy the pnmosens of sectnes 275 of EPA t'. ale esta a performance standard compitasse botas et the edge of the the Atosuc Emergy Act as amended, for a liested uma pened. la addlues. the waste impouadment.The spesa$a thet for r t 78 hasards, the ptvemale to se IPA standard and es basardous enhataases and standards "* * 'sitau prende for the supporttne enntonresetal evaluouse consestreeene (La. bachgeund leveis) .
. preteenes of haamaa health sad the *. mdaante that the DA canameuely that denne seneseshaase wie the enntonment oceanstant wtth the considered the acceptability of relytag secondary senadard at each este will be standards required under Subutje C of on active mamtenance to pmytde established for urentum mail tediage by the Solid Waede Diepenal Act, as stabihty following closure. and did not NRC and Agmement States. De SWDA
! amended, which are appucable to such prohibtt it. Rather, the DA standard rulee, bewever. perett alternete
( hasards." To senleve mas goal the DA requitse that, for neatedfological concenwettes limits to be established included within its reguaronesta hasards the need for active manatemaase when they wd! aet pese "* ' 's i
puhuated October T. Inst. selected ortly be masunnaad NRC's Appames A substaamal present er possettal hasard i previo6eas bem its regulations taeued flady preenlute any pleased rehaase os to human haesth or the sentenmaat" as i
under the Soud Waste Dispeaal Act active menetenance, lotte as the alleemate caseemoseen tamat
! (SWDA) by crose sofervecing the SWDA De Cemenemos rogueste comroeets la not enesedmL The rene elas alleur proviseena. These specific previsions are on wfteter et should delete or modify (etc)'hasardeos coneetesets' to be
) now is efect and the NRC !s addittenal provtasons of Appendia A esemped frese coverege by the pommt considenas undertahlag a tulernaldag includlag prescrtpove requarements fe, based on the some critectos. DA which would clattfy (ta regulauets by specaAc denen featuree wtuch may not determaaes the altamate cancentretica j including wtthin them those SWDA be amasseary to noot tae DA standard. standard or easeption under the 1
requirements selected by the EPA for The presuipovo roguarements in SWDA. DA's concurrease would be appbcenee te arensam and thornue endl quesnos mclude these for miniminag mquated under the ptopeeed standards teihngs. upetroom dreinsge arve, sirms wh,,, for taaltrige.*
The rulemaking under conatderetten there is good mnd protection. roletively The DA went on to fur'her desenbe would else be intended to settefy a f!At slopee. meadstory vegetative or the primary seanderd. pnmanly mquirement pieced opes the NRC under rock cover.cabble saae roch hash quality consistass of the baar desige i sectten 84 el the Atomee Assegy Act of rock cover, and rock arsonas. De requiremente. and clarify the seseadary
- 19M. to amended, to "* * ' taeme that standard, by tapag the managesses of any byprednes Conumaassee elas cansedered da!euse l the protubines se rehases on active *
"The pnmary standard. og CFR 1 metonal * *
- is camed est la sush maantenasse, modtfymg Catonen 3 184J.21. can usually be sensfled only by l menner as coeferene le general tuandenes be6ew grede dropoesi se the . usingliner metenele iauch es pleottee) ---
i requirements estanhehod try the pnme opeen. and deleting the that can totata all westes. Esempetone 1
Comeussion, with the concurTonce of the requirement for bachground radium permitting see of other liner matertola (EPA) Adauaistreter, wtuch era, to the 4
concentrettone in cover meteriale. Relief (such as Clay l that may telease water or
, manimum entent practicable. at leset from these retained provisions is ornanA quantattee of ethat subassacas at.
comparable to requitettiente apphcable available through case by esse in tema cases. paraatttas se knat may to the possession, transfer, and duposal propoeste bcessees as noted ta be greated only d euyetase of of esmdat hatardous matertalregulated proposed tions te the latroducces hasardous nonectuante mio tae ground by the Admtaurretor under the Solid of Appendia A of to CTR etL The Wsore Ctepenal Act, as amended
- The we'er or surface = seer weeld be Commise en sees comment eet whether preversted emieAnstety ' * *.*
- rulemehttte ieder considere tten. which this le rirffic*ent !!etibihty at vtew of the Trufer these standards, all new j to the pnmery subject of that ANFRM. Commissiert e intent to consider weste storage areas (wriether new i
)
I .
i
- - - - - - - - - - r,.. . . . . . . m w -
c---.-= wo- - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
1 Fodeent Regleter / Vol 4e. No. :28 / Monday. November 28, 1904 / Proposed Rules 48427 weste facdities or espansions of emisung and the followmg sections of the SWDA 19M. as amended. Consistent with that !
pilm) are subiect to me primary regulanone: authonty and m accordance with condard-de liner roquarement. If new i. Subpert F:
westes are added to an osaanng pde. ncuan sec. of that Act. the Commission 40 CTR :M31 Reqwred pregrama has the d:screuon to review and howent, the pde must comply with the 40 cm :M 95 Pomt of comphance approve site specific alternatives to secondary e-M 'he hasardous 40 CR :M.9s Compliance period standards promulgated by the coneutuent concentretles standards for 40 CTR :M 37 General ground w ater Commission and by the Admmistrator of health and enyttonmental protecuon. morutortng reqwrements Whether for a new or omsuas pile,if the 40 CTR :M.M Detecuan monitenas $e Environmental Protection Agency. In secondary standards are found not to be pre em de sure:Se of this authority, secuan seualled and subsequent correcuve Mc. does not require the Commission to 40 :M 94 Comp!!ance monitonag actions led to adueve compliance in a progsam obtain the concurrence of the reasonable time. the operator must ti. Subpart C; Admmistrator in any este specdc cease depositmq weste on that pile. alternauve wluch saustin Comnussion 40 CTR :04.117 Post doeure care and requiremente for the leni of protection Also in its October F.1943 Nonce. the use of property DA stated that "DA s responsibihties for public health, safety and the ui. Subpart k to utabheh standards under section 20e environment from rad 4 alogical and 40 CTR :M. :a Monitortne and
- nonradiological hasards at utentum mdl m pecuan m pundmen do a 1 or part of e (o o ng apacable nb u tailmes situ. As an pample, the wcn{n oi th[ SWDA regulauons.- 40 C R :M.:28 Closut Communion and not sak concurrence care. as apphcable,,,e and postdoeurs of the Adamiettator ta cue by. case 40 CTR 264.92 Cround water protection determanauona of altamauve standard The above quotations 8 rom the DNe concentreuse hatte and deltating of 40 CTR :44.33 Hazardous consutuents October 7,1943 Notice wrn te dartfY hasardous consubents for specific estee.
the substance of DNe standards, the "nW * 'fo'r'e'"','s"n"#eand " "d it should be understood tint the w o.ied as n . u :la m d
G r a7d t%,me,ulem.,msihei,"a',Trdeco,"e m
- caa*=a= *aaa *ei
= * --- f a. c=>a
40 CTR :M.100 Corncuve action o e o Cisheret.
considenrtg undertakmg. The NRC has repombdity and utenty under me program reviewed the language quoted and, with . Atome Ramgy Act of 1964, seMy se (This escnon la modded and adopted as the encepuon of the tuttedict>onal mgards areasum mau tenhage estee and I 18L33) .
, concema discussed ut the following han ne breeder cennetanos.
ll. Subpert C. '
secuen. believes it to be factually The Commessies believM that to CTR 2M tt1 C!asure performance correct and a fast representation of the licenece proposala for alternaune can standard issues addressed. be en importaat and effective way to (This secuon to adopted as part of . help deal with me pmblems associated i 19132(b)(tl) gg, r -*
g ,,m a,6ggy Authority and with implevnentists the new EPA bl. Sub'ut L standards. The Coeunission expects that Sectfon Mc.of the Atoetic Energy Act it may regate several yeere to have its to CTR 244.221 Design and operetml mqmnewnts for surface states thau A LAcense, may propoe*
altemanves to spect!!c requiremente conforuung regulataoss fully in place. It tapeuadanente espects to use @e flejubdtty provided adopted and enforced by the
('Due secuen te modif!ed and adopted as Comnuuien under this act. Such by secuen 06:n the interus to consider 819M2(eN1)) alternauve proposals may tal e mte i and approve ettemeuve propoects from
,NRC's toeponsibihties under account local or regsorial condat!ons, licensees. Secuca Mc. proedes NRC UMTRCA are to implement DNe induding geology, topography. suff!ctent authonty to mdependentgy standard and to ' ' insure that the hydrology and meteorology. The appron ehemauvu management of any byproduct Commteeion may tnet saca altemauves Cemnussion esa ma,so long n the e the required material ' ' 'is carre,<1 out m sus h e as settelyuts Conuninion requ:rements detenninanon, manner se * *
- conforms to general if 2e Commission determines that such g!!. leeum (w Pubus Commeets nqwrementa utobitshed by the attemouns wul achien e inel of Commiseson, with the concurnnce of the '
stabilt stion and contamment of the The NRC requota pubhc comment on Admuustrator, whica ere to the estes concemed. and a lent of the general quesuon of how best to mammwn entent precucable, at leset protectiert for put.hc health, sefety. and procud to fulfillits responsibihues comparable to toquaremente apphcable the environment from radiological and under me Atomic Energy Act. with to the poseeeeson, troasier, and disposal nontedialogical hasatde associated with respect to establishing SWDA.
of sunilar hasardove sietenal regulated suca sites, which is eqwvalent to, to the comparable reqwrements for the by the Admuustrater under the SWDA. eatent practicable. or more smngent management of mill tadings. to the se amended.' EPA wiu taeure ther NRC'e than the levet which would be echteved* ma nimum eutent practicable. In this **
regulanone utisfy then edmontuons by standards and requitereents adopted through its concurrence role. Relevant contest, comments are requested on and enforced by the Comnussiern for the SWVA regulatione are those embedded choicae and decisione the NRC must same purpose and any final standards in Subparts A (escept Secuan :M U. 8. promulgated by the Adarustrator of the mese concomms issues and actione that C. D. L F. C. H. and X. Esamples of are withm 6te d'ecretion. Corr.ments on EnvironmentalProtecnon Agencyin the basic value, voudity. lawfulnese. or enes which NRC must addrene in accordance with secuen :?l.
dachartmg these responsibihties eppropnateness of the EPNs SWVA The Corruniesion hastancelly has had utvolve functions under the sin sections regulanons, me SWDA. or the UMTRCA the authonty and niponsibihty to beted immediately above which are regulate the ecovttles of persons are not requested.
Lacorporated utto mese EPA standards, heensed andet the Atorruc Energy Act of a
f
_ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -
em Fedsel Bedster / Co!, te, No. 23e / noseday. November as, tees t pre, seed males i a. rm mme.Mec4paseh As c=ed a taas *W 4=**m (el How dended sheld PSC's W eser A cessess ne NRC eseks public tapet with Neuleuses bm and what ehemid and De MC has deselspeda toneedse roepect to all aspects of the queemos of eheeldso squand in ames see as
- g I
M'D
,g ,,,, ,,g egyg, es e.Etee ad E Iserg Act of 1984, as amended, for ***iY"',d*
mgo ,, _
anal osedseted to does, pretsenes of youad weter. Tbs NRC
.to.em eed is made a ppsees.h a
of e le .i"-aspa===m==* - Q'"#8""
de,ere,senseso,e,ause,,g
"" d8 punite essenessment se esorte spot ta pathe commes be
,y, ,",,,,,, %
w, getacent h m . ,q,h. ,,,,
. de* i- and reperuss quahty assureece, see,f are requested to prend,e o ,ered e,the beme is (pi re wk.tset.at m.et .e M e dmieposet of addiesse to NRC fectfe,aa ,o ,. sees 1
mgelsem fWeer a bleek lasert at te m prende seppereeg emetreamestel
- end of to CFR Part te er perhaps by (1) Shoned the SWDA coseparable tapest emelyses econdeeing the seenre cuenos of a new Pen 41) which would u W pkud in MC of to regekomente ender seenderegen, i centeen the seere set of SWDA* regulanone be espiacitly restated to esas of which have already bene '
camperehle mquuussa, procteely duchcote DNe langeaga e, imposed by DA and are esseetwor ff The addidens would be orgarnised la steuld substanuve roquatemente he seppertes eenroesotal evalueseas are
' patophtued? esaded for SWDA camperehle rule terms of desegn, operadas, cleeure, and ;
(2) Should all of Subpart F be changes meset for the regieremente poes cisoure regestwesets and would to '
the felleet esteet foemble, be a complete included? What snould set be unrJudedf alseedy tapeesd by the DA, should the statemeet of the toquaremente enthout (3) What should be inshaded a e NRC asseems to pressed wth sely a l referesse to DA regewesente in Title lieuas of hasastems consensente let mall sinele rulemakine to essehilah a sempleee tenhage to replate me afkten less last om of SWDA esaperchio regadrumsseef j 4e of the Code of Federal Regialetteen, la ta Appendia VW to to CFR part Jet j th6e wey, the reguremente could be (10)le the aamtelity atend to es stated le a self esoteemed, me68ed referseesd ta to CFR asust Sheeld proposed addittee to the 'seednesien of conetttuente set usually erest Appsodia A te OR Part to seSaleet se
! masseris see pleen. Coverage would preeset soeve trece I i be testudedf should the NRCdeceisp and lachsde et loans the SWDA reeminesents What critone ehemed be appued to adneesel mediaanteens to to .
i streedy tusesed by EPA (40 r"FR ,
desde what osasetuente eheuid be the physenet eeshility asysess of the WA,
{ ... Je4_st 44,JeeleE6astilf.e.* 284.321). laciuded? etaedardt j end apprepnete portions of the SWDA (4) The NRC must estabish SWDA*
i requeemente memeesed by the GA competeble regwremente to the tJet of &le 2 CFR Fue e euphetly se *esemples of areas which manueue estest precocable. la thas 1 Cevernment eestreets Massedsee NRC must addrese* (these naciude to contest what te procusable even meld ; ; een, N umiser
) CFR 204.30 48. 2e4117, Jeu 21 and . curmet preence sad the currest efete et acertale Pseesty.Repertogand *
- 2eu2en, technology 7 tweerdheeptos regeremanet Seeres I ne ndemahme base seendered to, meterial, sad Uteasuet (3) Should NRC reteta the beste preessai by the NRC may indade meet sequeese sehened ue Swbpart F where Desed as Weehangen,0C, than at det of i
of Sapert F (eg CFR 36A8-1001, des to hcenem who demo pund weter Novemeur teme6 I the e,lme eekneesh contamaaeuen progrees through e m,s,es,s.,does, e,i.p Far 'As Neelser Regelseery e-3 e esand,e,e.e -d-iod senie of moum. m:
i preveneen, and beseuse all but to CFR l
desense mestann6 emush 3 ,, e,y erge %-
2ee sa r~
- com o, menusa . .e to,a.to einer % ,, _,,,,,
! ph byimpsome DA. "g {"puesee meutenne--and me te[,7,#M*,g ,"
ne - .derof. EDA,eSWDA .
' mu- m waa. Sa-i ^ t-meet plass amW are bems .
i i 244J). 3, C D. E. F. C. H. and X would devole,ed. ,s.,ewsA and in,iemonteo :
be reviewed la develeting a propeeel te Would l
deverwune wasch of these regemesom ,,,,,,,,, ,,it be ,advisetle
, ,,,,,,, to, ,, ,,prececable
, g , e . g or '
would need to be lanssperated La NRC all NRC tiesessee have approved 1
Nguledene te establish MC compike8e mentefmq progrene GH f*luamasets wM are to to maeemum em autemetically activated and implemented whee needed?
e atont pressestem as leses semperehle get Should to besse SWDA ocheme to the EPNe SWDA regenoments for etmilar beoordens tenestet, for the tuaans and durenen of a compilance* perted, e " closure
- period, in developeeg this psopenal the NRC and e *peet closure cate* perted be would disungssak between embetaaswe meseteingdf What seeddicadone, requirements and DNe utel delenene, odditises steeld be madef percuttmg regeremente use 61 does (T1 To what esteet, how, sad under not bebeve the UhfTRCA mandate what condittene should leek detecese regurve the NRC te adopt omf petuon el eyetems under Magle liner the prwederal peneettas assesse of impoundmente be ellowed to fuUl2 the UA e regulettees no PtRC's requ6temoets for a detectos mentones l estabhened precedurve for useneens, program Wet oderwtee regates a l taepecuen, and enforcemost would be I merutettag well te se uppermeet used with repost to implementeues, aguleri l
l ,e'
- - - - - ~~
1 e
l M
e 4
EllClostlRE C
G Ursaiwn Mi:1Teillnes Radiance Coneel Act purpose of this Subpert ofiera,puh t.a H ot u e m nded. (c) Controlmeses say action to etehdise inhibit hiture sueuse of.or
- * * *
- reduce emiseices or emueete grosa ursedum bypredest maternels.
Simpart M for (d) Usensauf eses mesas the eres Management of Uranhan Byproduct contained withis the boundary of a Masertsee pursuant to Season of Wie looseen under the esseet of peremos Atomie Energy Act of 1984 es gaaeretnog or eterlag uranium A8eended motertale ender a liesase i pursuant to Sessee M of the Aet.For I "'8 A8"""F' purposee of this sebyerL"lisomoed site" I1de embpart applies to the is equivaleet to " regulated usit'* la r=at====* of ureatumbyproduct Subpart F of Part att of this chapter.
seatertale ender Secties M of the Aloede (eg pinposetsies meses e ests asleeted Eastgy Act of 1984 (heecderth pursuant to Sosties e of the Aet.
- daeiywied "the Act"). m emeeded. (r)ofeposese,se mesesthetogies duttng and following proceeWag of wtthis the portmeter of en tapeundreest PAftf 199-MEALTrt AND uranium orse, sad to restoretion of or yde costelains ureatum by product DevNtoestseffAL PROTECTICII disposal estee following eay use of such metatels to widek the pes.closere 37ANDAMOS p0ft UMA881Utd A800 estee under Section 83(b)(1)(3) of th* require sente of l 1eL32(b)(1) of this THOReute edILL TAluffGS Act, subpart apply.
- * * * * (3) Aegis /esory agency essess the U.S.
g totat Ostenene one Creusaforensee.
Nucjeer Regulatory Ceemission, guapert m for Refenaces la thle subpart to other (b) Closure perted means the period of Rennegement of UrerWum W perte of the Cosle of Federal llegulations use W wth se conseden, with nestenede Pursuant to Seeson M of Wie em to them parte se codalled on january respect to a weste impouedsent of
- 1. test, Atomes Energy Act of 1934 as uranium ore processing operatione sad Asnendog (a) Ueless otherwise ladicated la thle ending with completoe of requimmente
) subpart, su terme shed heve the some specified under a cloews plea, see, meaning se la Title 11of the Urealum (i) C.'oeure plon means the plea teue Appisse6dity.- heill Tedinge Redisuos Control Act of r, quired under i 284.112 of this chapter.
1sul Deflaettene and Casesafeeenese= 19T8. Subparte A and 5 of thte part, o'
'"38 8'**d*'d*
- 0) terst!ryportion menos that lead Ports ten 200. 291 ead 94 of tttis surface one of en emiettag surface totas caemen Aseen pmemses' chapter. For the purposes of thee 1m34 ISeeen Dees, impoundreent on which easpuscent rebpart, the tenne "weste." "h aserdose quantades of uromuso byprodurA g ,,, weste.' and rotated terms es used la materiale have been placed prior to '
d m
.ene.smo,ureum,t e.orte e ee rne-m .
to See etre.as. .e Z'fet,'ae na:!ste*e?" p--lau- d *ie aw-4.
(b) Umm.um baroduct morenal
, ,,,., ,m,es,se.
Alemte energy Act of 19H. se 4 engeg means the tedings or westes produced (a) Sienderife for app // cot /on during toy the entractson or concentratsen sf pacessort operations andenor to the tues Applicabilery, uterium from say are processed , ertd of the e/oeum penoit. (1) Surface tuet pnmeiens. pnmertly for its source metenal content. tropoundownte (encept for en existins; t u 6a S bewuie Pretcone. Om bodies denieted by ure'itien portion l embiect to this embpert must be in6s annove 04'*- solution entrecuan sporettone and destgeod constructed, sed installed la Amhaney, see, r s of the Ate .e rmegy ah'eti remain underground do not such reenaer se to conforse to the Aes of test sa u sc. mes, a added by tee constitum " byproduct metenel" for the requiremente of 8 2ee.221 of this chapter.
Federal itegister / Vd. 48. No.19e / Friday Oc*ober 7.19e3 / Rtiles and Resulations 459s i except that at utes where the annual (4) The regulatory syncy. in prec:pitation falling en the impoundment ecnfor= tty with Federal Radicien Ite134 sffeso w asia.
and any dreinase area contributing protect!en Cuidance (FR. Wy 18.1900. Substt D shall be effective Decemb
- 6.1983.
surface runoG to theimpoundment is pgs. 4e02-3), shall :nake every effort ts less than the enamel evaporados from the impoundmentthe requessients of maintain radiation doses from radon hei.s A emissions from surface unpoun:iments 1 *,64.223(a)(2)(111)(5 referenced la of uratuum byproduct raatene!s as far som i :04 221 do not apply. .
(2) Urentum byproduct materials shall below the Federal Radiation Protectten be managed so as to conform to the Guides site. as is practicable at each licensed Y ,8.0,7M;;;;;G,;d I' ground water protecdos standard in l :ee.at of this chapter, except that for (b) Sicadorifs Ar opplicorron of?ar the me purposes of this subpart closure;errod. At the end of the closure period:
(1) To the list of hasardous Suteert E-$tenaards for constituents referenced la l M93 of (1) Disposal areas shah each comply Management of Tho: sum syproduct this chapter are added the chemical with the closure performance standard Motonele Pursuant to Session 44 of tft eternents molybdesen and uremum. in l :64.111 of this chapter with respect Alemie gnerTy Act of 1954, as (ii) To the concentretica llauts to nontediological hazards and shall be Amenced j provided in Table 1 of I 2s4.94 of this designed 5 to provide reasonaale sssurance of control of radiological I ' "** #"*"""Y'
] chapter are added the radioactivity
- Hauts la Table A of this subpart* hazards to This subvert appHes to the I (111) Detectros monstonag programa (!) Se e!Tective for one thousand yeare, manspment of thorium byproduct
' reqared under 1284.90 to estantish the .# ge extentte nabjy ac.+.svahge. materials under Section se of the Atomi standarde required under i :84.92 shall '"d. i a y se, at mmyeare, Energy Act of 1964, as amended, during be completed withis one (1) year of ad, ad followtag processing of thortum prommisados. (H) Llant mioases of redos.222 from ores, and to resterettaa of disposal stes (iv)The regulatory agency msy ureatma byproduct matanals to the following any use of such sites under estabilait alternate concentrados !!mits atmosphm so as to not exceed as Sectionse(b)(1)(B)of the Act.
(to be setta8ed at the petat of averste 8 release rett of 20 picacuries t
- * .f total Pressment. * .-
comeManes spectSed under i 284.981 '
. per square r.seter per second (pC1/m* ).
i The prerrts6 ens of Si.hoert D of this under the critarts of l 294.9s(bl. (2) The mqmromerite of Sectica provided that. after ceasedertag . part tacinding 191sL31. isL33, and 192.32(b)(1) anall not apply to any
' precgonble cartvedve actions, these portion of a !!ceassa and/or d!sposal 1SL33, stad apply to thortum byproduct limits are as low as reasonably matertal sads site which contains a concentration of (a) Provisions applicable to the achievable, and that, la say case, the radium 2*8 la land, averaged over areas standants of 1 :ss.se(s) are senefied at of 100 square meters, which, as a result element ureatum saalt also apply to the au pensts at a yester distance than 500 eternent thomies of utsatum byproduct matertal. does not metere frees the edge of the disposal (b) Provisions aoplicable to reden.:22
- exceed the background level by ctore shall aise opply to raden.2
- Oc and ares and/,or outside the site boundary, tham and (c) Previstons acplicable to rediwn-(il 3 picacurtes per grain (pC:/3). ::s shall also apply to reafum.Z:s.
i 1
(vl The fonctions and responsibilittes i aversed over the first13 ceaumetere (d) Operations covermi under designated ta Part :t,4 of this chapter as (cm) below the surface, and those of the " Regional Administrator'* 1192.3:fal shad be conducted in such a i
(ii)13 pC!/s, avereyd over 13 c::: maru:ec as to provide reasonable with respect to " faculty peruuts
- shall thick layers more than 13 cm below the i
be carried out by the regulatory agency, surfeca, assurance that ths anttual dose i
except that esempoons of hasardous eqwvalent does not exceed :s millfretra to the whole body. 75 minirems to the consatuents under i :84.33 (bl and (c) of l taas carmee Aseen N- - thyroid, and 23 aulltreme to any other this chapter and alternate concentreues !f the ground water standards l orgen of any member of the pubile as a 11tutta established under i 284.04 (b) and established under provtstons of Section l' (c) of this chapter (encept as otherwise result of exposures to the planned 192.02(al(2) are exceeded at any discaerge of radioactive matenals.
provided la i teL32(a)(2)(tv)) shall not !! censed stta, a corrective actica i
be eGective esitet EPA has commered rsdon 220 and its daughtere excepted. to program se spenfled la 244.100 of this the pneral environunent.
therena, chapter shall be put into operettoa as 2
(3) Ursalem bygsedest metertels shall soon as is practicable. and la no event
{ be managed se as to esaform to the f ina8 Summmde amanene.
later thaa eighteen (18) months alter a Une regulatory agency may, wtth the i peevtsions et finding of anceedance.
i (al Part 190 of this chapter, concurrence of EPA. substitute for any
- Environmental Radiatton Pmtsetton provtstons of i 19141 of this subpart l Standards for Nuclear Power in. 4.,4 ,,s. 4 w..wn p, alternative provisions it deeres more red.e ass .aer immed.e.e . .e eer.ea. ,t practical that wtil prowtde at least sa
- Cperettons* and da'*.ew.w wnm eave i ib) Part 440 of this chapter. "Cre equivalent level of protection for h'imaa
' ** * * * ***d "W enn a s
- 'a
- Mltung and Dreenng Point Source w wee ,t u.i .m v.w. health and the environment.
C4togorytIffluent I.anutations %,n
'e me.c.
my,, ,. i.s e
- th
. , . .g
, ,,g ,3 g 3 ,,,,, ,,,,,
Cedelinee and New Sour e*
. w.
esmas m.wems a hen wg Subpart E shad be afrective December r Performance Standards. Suboart C. "' *" ** **** "** d a **a *f 4 **eme 8. 1943.
Urarumn. Radiurn, aad Vanaalum Cre Subempey.- .M..*.".'.l[,*.*.'".,C,,,".'
"**","T
.rn on etrm.e m+ n.e e
.mm es.e -
I l .
e 4
O O
ENCLOSURE D m
0 0
URAFI NRC CONSIDERS REGULATIONS TO PROTECT GROUND UATER_
NEAR URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its regulations on uranium mill tallings to incorporate ground-water protection requirements published by the Environmental Protection Agency.
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 conformity with the standards issued by EPA.
l 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 Commission firds that alternative design and operating practices, along with **
characteristics of the specific site where the mill tailings are located, will -
prevent migration of specifie,d hazardous materials into the ground or surface -
water. t E.VCLCSURE D
unsre (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 require that the concentrations be as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account the, state of technology and tne 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. .
The proposed NRC rules would also require licensees to establish a detection and ccmpliance 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.
- 4 m
e n
e3 __
e . e 6m n- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
Other details of the proposed rule are contained in a Federal Register notice published on . Interested persons are invited to submit written coments to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, by (60 days after publication of the pecposed rule in the Federal Register).
An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject was published
, in the Federal Register on November 26, 1984 Coments received were considered in developing the proposed rule.
l a
e ee e
y l .
_ - , - , _ , - - - - - , , - - - -- - --- + - - - - , - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~
es e
ENCLOSURE E l
[
l l
l l
[
~ . _
~
ENCLOSURE E
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 40 for licensing uranium mills and disposal of mill tailings-and waste.
The NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 (Public Law 97-415, signed January 4, 1983) contained a requirement that the ~ Commission modify its mill tailings regulations to conform to final Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for these materials. Final standards were signed by the Administrator September 30, 1983 and published on October.7, 1983 (48 FR 45926).
The enclosed proposed amendments represent the second step in a two step rulema. king the NRC is undertaking to modify its rules to make them consistent with the EPA standards and satisfy provisions of Section 205 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended. The proposed amendments to Appendix A consist of changes to the existing Commission regulations necessary to complete conformance to the EPA standards and to incorporate within Commission regulations those provisions of the EPA standards related to ground water.
l l
The enclosed notice is being sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. A copy of a public announcement to be released by the NRC on' this matter is also enclosed.
Sincerely, John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
- 1. FR Notice on proposed amendments
- 2. Public Announcement l
l 1 - , - . _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _