ML20214N286
| ML20214N286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/25/1986 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q655 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46425, FRN-51FR24697, RULE-PR-40 AB56-1-44, NUDOCS 8609160222 | |
| Download: ML20214N286 (3) | |
Text
9 6
213/MH/86/04/14
-1_
APR 2 5 gggg Distribution:
WM 213 r/f WMLU r/f NMSS s/f J0 Bunting RE Browning MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald Nussbaumer, Assistant Director MJ Bell For State Agreements Program K Dragonette Office of St6te Programs M Haisfield v/4re y DE Martin FROM: Robert E. Browning, Director MR Knapp Division of Waste Management, NMSS
SUBJECT:
TEXAS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 40
~
. Enclosed are the responses.to your April 8,1986 request. The responses ' .
. are keyed to t'he Texas April 1, letter.
"r!cinal SMnsd by Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management, NMSS l
Enclosure:
As stated 1
8609160222 860904 PDR PR 40 51FR24697 PDR r
3FC :WMLU:rj :WM
____:_____...[ ___:______ ....:__
- WM :WM :
.____:_________N::WMLUh___::WM NAME :M Haisfield :K Dragonette: rtin :MR Knapp :MJ Be :RE rowning ::
- 86/04/ f p :
j JATE :86/04/ /6 :86/04/g :86/04Gl :86/04/ :86/ 4/
j-l l
Comments on Specific Sections A. 1. The p,roposed definition of a " surface impoundment" specifies that impoundments qualify only if liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids will be involved. Thus, the primary standard would not apply to dewatered wastes if no free liquids remain prior to emplacement in the impoundment. However, the secondary standards apply to byproduct materials whether they are dewatered or not.
As discussed in SE(3), dewatering needs to be considered when developing ground-water protection programs.
This rule applys to byproduct materials. Inje'ction, pre-injection, or surge ponds are therefore included if they receive byproduct materials.
- 2. These conforming regulations are based on legally binding EPA
- standards. We do not-have the flexibility to modify EPA standards to " prevent any unacceptable migration of pollutants..."
- 3. Either the proposed or final. rule will clarify your concern.
- 4. Either the proposed or final rule will clarify that all radon is excluded. As we understand the EPA standards, radon 222 daughters and radon 220 (thoron) daughters are not excluded.
5.8 6. Criterion SE (1) and SE(2) are repeats of existing Part 40 regulations, and are not affected by this conforming rule change..
General Comments
- 1. " Point of compliance" is defined at the outset in the definition section.
- 2. Synthetic liners are not required to last beyond the active life and
, closure period.
i
- 3. a) OSP will handle..
b) It is up to the State to determine which state agencies are ,
required in the implementation of this rule.
c) Agreement States, like NRC, cannot modify EPA's list of toxic compounds to generically remove constituents without extensive rulemaking. (States could add constituents under discretionary 10 CFR 150.31 (d),however.) The most important factor in implementing the standard is the provision that compounds are only considered hazardous constituents at a site when they meet i
all three requirements of SB(2), i.e., they are:
i
-- reasonably expected to be there have been detected
-- are listed in Criterion 13 (EPA's list) i
Alternate concentration limits can be established by the implementing agency under 40 CFR 192. However, EPA concurrence is required. See below for more on how to
' establish ACL's.
d) Our intent is that any MOU, or agreement, between NRC and EPA can apply equally to the Agreement States. EPA is currently developing an ACL Guidance Document. The agreement we are trying to reach will state that if NRC and our licensees use the ACL Guidance Document, then EPA will not need to concur on s.ite specific ACL's.
i