ML20215C921
| ML20215C921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/25/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-86-225, SECY-86-255, NUDOCS 8612160008 | |
| Download: ML20215C921 (5) | |
Text
\\m fDL t
gm RfC h
O g
August 25, 1986 POLICY ISSUE secy-88-2ss The Conmissi(onersInformation)
For:
From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF POLICY OPTIONS ON MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
Purpose:
To provide status report in response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated July 23, 1986.
Background:
In SECY 86-142A, the staff recommended that the Commission endorse recommendation 1b of SECY 86-142 to minimize the volume and toxicity of mixed waste.
In SECY 86-142B, the staff noted that while an administrative solution to the mixed waste problem may appear technically achievable, the preliminary results of NRC/ EPA interactions have not undergone policy, legal, and upper management review in either agency. The staff further noted that dual regulation is likely to be technically and procedurally complex.
Prior to proposing any specific recommedations for legislation, the staff recommended that the Commission endorse the staff's approach of attempting to resolve interagency regulatory differences with EPA.
Discussion:
The NRC staff is continuing to address the mixed waste problem in three ways: advice and guidance to mixed LLW generators; regulation of existing LLW disposal facilities; and guidance for future sites under LLRWPAA.
CONTACT:
Malcolm R. Knapp, NMSS 42-74433 e61216000s e60825 PDR SECT PDR 96-255
(
g 2
'The staff has met with EPA six times since the July 8 Commission briefing.
Middle / upper managers from both agencies attended some of these meetings.
These managers have reviewed the progress of NRC/ EPA interactions and are seeking to implement the approach taken by both agencies in resolving the mixed waste issue.
The enclosed letter from John Davis to EPA Assistant Administrator Winston Porter documents many of the recent accomplishments and plans of the two agencies on this subject.
With res'pect to advice and guidance to mixed LLW generators, the staff is developing an information notice on segregation and treatment of mixed waste which we expect to issue shortly.
More formal guidance, such as a bulletin or a regulatory guide, which is also expected to address
^
. biological hazards, is in the planning stage.
With respect to regulation of existing LLW disposal facilities, we understand that EPA has Congressional direction to implement RCRA at all potential hazardous waste facilities, including the three operating LLW disposal sites, by November 1988.
EPA will begin to consider appropriate steps for RCRA permitting at the meeting between EPA, NRC, and the State of Washington described on page 2 of the letter from Davis to Porter.
EPA intends this implementation to proceed at a measured pace to ensure constructive actions.
With respect to the guidance for future sites under LLRWPAA, progress on various items is summarized as follows:
EPA shares the NRC staff's commitment to establishing by September 30 whether the differences between the statutory and regulatory provisions of the two agencies may require legislative action.
EPA has a clear understanding from Congressional sources that a legislative solution to the mixed waste issue will be difficult to achieve.
Therefore, EPA definitely intends to make dual regulations workable; however, there are other, higher priority items on EPA's agenda.
For this reason, the two staffs are having some difficulty addressing possible
t.
alternatives to EPA's current design standards of dual liners and a leachate collection system.
EPA has made it clear that joint guidance on location standards will not be possible at this time.
(This issue arose because EPA's location standards are not scheduled for completion until after the LLRWPAA deadline of January 1988 for the states and compacts to complete siting plans.) The NRC staff had hoped that EPA would provide assurance that their final location standards would not be expected to be signi.ficantly more stringent than the sum of their prospective standards and NRC's LLW siting standards in 10 CFR Part 61. However, EPA attorneys consider such a position prejudicial to their rulemaking effort on this subject. Therefore, this alternative is no longer being pursued.
EPA is committed to working with the NRC staff to achieve a workable solution.
The staff anticipates developing options and a recommendation on this issue which will be documented for the Commission in the paper due September 30, and aggressively pursued in parallel.
The NRC staff considers that its interactions with EPA on the mixed waste issue are progressing satisfactorily, and involvement of the Commission and the Administrator is not required at this time. However, should the situation change, the staff will advise the Commission accordingly.
0GC has reviewed this paper together with the attachment and agrees that they correctly reflect the status of NRC/ EPA interactions.
l~
//
- (j c
V or Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
Corunissioners OGC (H Street)
~
.f t%e;'o,
/~
UNITED STATES
! %(d&i f i
.I* i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
i casm No ron. o. c. 20555
\\g%
n A..,_
me j
J..
+....
Dr. J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator
' 0ffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. Street, SW Washington, DC 20460
Dear Dr. Porter:
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1986 and our joint meeting on July 31, 1986.
I appreciate your commitment to the September 30 date to identify any statutory and regulatory differences which may require congressional action.
We agree that there is " guarded optimism" that the two agencia can resolve the mixed waste issue administratively.
With re pect to your letter, you expressed interest in the three currently operating low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal sites.
As we agreed in our meeting, in the interest of maximizing the effectiveness of our efforts in the limited time available, we will focus initially on the current State of Washington efforts to implement dual regulation of the commercial low-level waste disposal facility at Hanford, Washington.
Both the state agency which carries out the NRC agreement program and the EPA suthorized state agency responsible for hazardous waste regulation are familiar with this disposal facility.
These agencies are addressing the same questions the NRC and EPA Headquarters staffs are currently addressing, namely, differences between the radioactive and hazardous waste regulations and how best to resolve them.
Your letter also mentioned that EPA plans to initiate a rulemaking action which would allow variances under Section 1006 of RCRA for instances where application of the RCRA requirements would be inconsistent with the requirements of-the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Members of our staff have met to discuss possible means of implementing this section, and we support this effort.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of preserving for NRC (or NRC-authorized Agreement States) a significant role in determining what the AEA and the implementing regulations require and whether those requirements are inconsistent with the RCRA requirements.
Based upon the July 31, 1986 meeting, I have set a high priority for my staff to work on several items which are outlined as follows:
1.
Continue NRC/ EPA working sessions to:
o Develop a joint statement on the definition of mixed waste (EPA technical, program, and legal staff review by 8/27/86; policy meeting between NRC/ EPA on 9/2/86) o Jointly develop a comparison of the regulations of both agencies (Submit revised partial version to EPA by 8/15/86; EPA technical, program, and legal staff review by 8/29/86)
I AUG 18 5%
2.
Co-sponsor with EPA a meeting with Washington State representatives concerning the Richland, Washington'LLW disposal facility to initiate the RCRA permitting process and begin working through the issues arising from dual regulation (arrangements by 8/28/86; meeting by 9/30/86).
Inform states hosting the other two LLW disposal facilities of our meeting (due date 8/28/86).
3.
Invite the State of Texas to present to both agencies its progress towards establishing a LLW facility with particular reference to mixed waste.
This-should provide insight as to how a state attempting to develop a new disposal facility views dual regulation of mixed waste (arrangements due 8/20/86; meeting by 9/12/86).
4.
Following the site meeting with the State of Washington and the briefing by the State of Texas, develop a paper for information purposes.
The paper can be presented at meetings such as Afton Associates Meeting scheduled for late September /early October where the states and compacts now developing LLW disposal facilities are expected to participate.
The paper should discuss what NRC and EPA are presently doing and what the states and compacts should do.
I believe that, to a degree, the above efforts can be performed in parallel.
I understand that our staffs have met and agreed upon the above due dates.
If you agree, I recommend that both agencies attempt to meet these dates.
As we noted during our meeting, NRC is identifying and evaluating desirable treatment and management measures that licensed generators can take to reduce the volume and chemical toxicity of mixed waste.
As I understand from our discussions, incineration may be a viable technology for treating some of this waste; however, its practicality may be limited by the process for approval and permitting.
I would like to work with you to examine incineration technology to determine if it should be endorsed as a treatment for mixed waste, and if so, to identify ways to streamline its permitting.
I suggest that we attempt to determine the feasibility of mixed waste incineration by September 19, 1986.
I am encouraged by the results thus far of the interactions of our two agencies on the mixed waste issue.
I suggest that we meet periodically to review the
-progress of our agencies toward its resolution.
Si cerely,
)
NM[/. !
ohn G.' Davis, irector Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards