ML20236T701
| ML20236T701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/03/1987 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Fliegel M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-48 NUDOCS 8712020028 | |
| Download: ML20236T701 (18) | |
Text
- -____-
Di.stribution plLWM s/f NMSS r/f
' LLOB r/f MKnapp NOV 0 3 1!57 JGreeves MKearney PLohaus JSurmeier MWeber MEMORANDUM FOR: Myron H. Fliegel, Section Leader RJStarmer Operations Branch MYcung Division of Low-level Waste Management LDeering and Decommissioning KDragJogtte WM Record File t" PH " 7/
FROM: Michael F. Weber r.- .
Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management "~ n[ ( 7~---
and Decommissioning LM- -
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON TRIP TO DURANG0 AND_LAKEWOOD,_ COLORADO,_.._ _ _ . _ _ . .
OCTOBER 28 - 30, 1987 . . . .- . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ -
_.(W.w a la .. ..'g a _ .
On Wednesday, October 28, 1987, I travelled to Durango, Colorado, to participate in EPA's public hearing on proposed standards for groundwater protection at inactive uranium tailings sites. EPA held the hearing, which was attended by approximately 35 people, at the Strater Hotel in Durango from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on October 29, 1987. Enclosure 1 provides a summary of all testimony presented at the hearing; Enclosure 2 provides the LLWM staff testimony that I presented at the hearing. The hearing officer was Allan Richardson of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs. Dr. Richardson was accompanied by John Russell and Kurt Feldmann of EPA /0RP.
EPA opened the hearing by summarizing the proposed standards and reviewing legal constraints imposed on EPA by UMTRCA and the September 1985 decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision set aside EPA's implementation guidance for groundwater protection in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 192. EPA stated that a complete transcript would be available for the hearing within approximately one week and that EPA would announce the closing date for public comments on the proposed standards at the conclusion of the hearing.
Eight organizations presented testimony about the proposed groundwater protection standards. The speakers stated that the 30-day coment period was insufficient to prepare formal coments and requested from 30- to 90-day extensions of the coment period. Most speakers commented favorably that the l proposed standards provide greater flexibility for implementation than EPA's standards for active uranium and thorium mills. Representatives of the Hopi ],
Tribe, Navajo Tribe, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Colorado Department of )
Health commented that certain aspects of the proposed standards were not I sufficiently stringent. In contrast, representatives of the Department of Energy, American Mining Congress, and Cotter Corporation commented that )
aspects of the standards were too stringent. Specific comments made by each i of the speakers are sumarized in Enclosure 1. No testimony was presented by speakers who had not previously arranged with EPA to present testimony. EPA announced that it would close the comment period on the proposed standards on January 8, 1988. The hearing terminated at approximately 2:30 p.m. '
l 8712O20028 871103 PDR WASTE WM-48 PDR
.I
l
~
WM-39/MFW/87/11/03/ EPA NOV 0 3 E87 3 Following the hearing, DOE staff and contractors took the EPA staff and myself I on a brief tour of remedial action activities at the inactive uranium mill tailings site in Durango. Heavy rain had closed down the tailings relocation operation for the day. This operation currently involves excavation of the 'I tailings from the large tailings pile, transport of the tailings and vicinity property materials to the disposal site, and placement of these contaminated materials in the eastern end of the Bodo Canyon disposal site. The rain also prevented my detailed observation of the remedial action activities. I took several photographs of the site, which I will share with you after they are developed.
On October 30, 1987, I travelled to Lakewood, Colorado, to visit with Ed Hawkins and Gary Konwinski of NRC's Uranium Recovery Field Office. The purposes of my visit included the following: (1) to debrief URF0 staff about EPA's hearing on the proposed groundwater protection standards, (2) to discuss the development of NRC's guidance about alternate concentration limits (ACLs),
(3) to discuss NRC's review of DOE's proposed legislative revisions to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and (4) to coordinate an upcoming NRC inspection of remedial action at the Clive disposal site. URF0 requested LLWM assistance in developing generic health and environmental levels for hazardous constituents that are commonly found in uranium mill tailings at the active sites. These levels may then be used as benchmarks to compare with health-based concentration limits proposed by licensees as part of the ACL review process. We also discussed my idea to convene a training course for licensees about ACLs, which could be held in conjunction with the symposium next February at the Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. A training session about ACLs at the February symposium would be especially timely because URF0 anticipates ACL applications from most uranium mills l starting in April or May of 1988. After our discussions terminated at 12:30 I p.m., I returned home to Washington, D.C.
Please contact me if you have any questions about my trip or would like to discuss the trip in more detail.
Original Signed BY Michael F. Weber Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
Enclosures:
As Stated 0FC :LLOB : : : : : :
NAME :MUeber : : : : : :
'DATE :87/11/03
EiiCLOSURE 1 .I
SUMMARY
OF EPA'S PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR GROUNDWATE.R FROTECTION r
AT INACTIVE URANIUM TAILING'S SITES OCTOBER 29 1987 DURANGO, COLORADO I. Introduction
- 1. EPA represented by Allan Richardson (Chairman). Lurt Feldmann, and John Russell.
- 2. EPA opened the hearing by cummari:ing the proposed standards and emphasizing the legal constraints placed on' EPA by UMTRCA and the Tenth Circuit Court Decision.
- 3. Transcript of hearing will be available within 1 week of the hearing.
- 4. Durango was selected as the place for the hearing becuase it was located in about the geographic center of 23 of the UMTRAP sites.
II. Testimony of the Hopi Tribe (Leroy Shingoitewa w/ Mark Logsdon)
- 1. Proposed standards should include all constituents, whether hazardous or not, that affect water use (e.g., sulfate)
- 2. EPA should not delegate standards setting authority to NRC:
NRC does not have er:pertise necessary to set standards and no written guidelines for conducting reviews.
- 3. EPA has not adequately evaluated leachate production and tailings hydraulics; designs to ensure long-term stability and radon control are not necessarily sufficient to protect groundwater.
- 4. EPA's 100 year instutional control period provision is
- arbitrary and capricious
- unreliable to protect human health and environment
- unacceptable because it may delay correttive action by 100 years
- unimplementable on Indian Reservations
- 5. Molybdenum concentration limit should be 0.01 mg/l rather than 0.1 mg/1 but Hop 1's would settle for 0.05 mg/1.
- 6. Monitoring after disposal is absolutely necessary and should be required for a much longer time period than implied in the proposed standards.
- 7. EPA has incorrectly classified the N-aquifer at Tuba City as Class III or even Class II; Hopi's consider the aquifer
.I Class I.
B. Standards should enplicitly provide for the consultation and concurrence role for States and Tribes in addition to NRC.
~
- 9. NRC should amend / conform its regulations to EPA's proposed standards.
- 10. Uranium toxicity should be evaluated on the basis of both radiological and chemical tcMicity.
11.
Hopi Tribe intends to provide specific comments to EPA by November 30, 1987.
III. Testimony of BIA (Amy Houslin, Phoenix Office)
- 1. BIA concurs with all of the Hopi comments.
2.
1987.
BIA intends to submit specific comments by November 30.
IV. Testimony of DOE (John Baublit , DOE-HQ) 1.
DOE is very concerned about potential cost and duration i impacts associated with the proposed standards.
2.
RCRA and UMTRCA have led to conflicting and irreconcilable requirements with respect to implementing the long-term !
stability and groundwater protection standards.
3.
EPA should develop proposed standards that enable the RCRA design philosophy and SARA concepts to be more appropriately implemented in UMTRAP.
- 4. !
Provisions of the proposed standards lead ~ to design l requirements that are impossible to implement and to l unnecessary costs.
S. DOE requests that the final standards includes l
- flexibility for establishing the POC at some distance ;
i downgredient from the edge of the tailings j
- ACLs that :ontinue af ter completion of the remedial- !
ac tiori i
- clarification of 40 CFR 192.22(d), which currently requires groundwater restoration when it is impossible or in Class III groundwater
- flexibility for groundwater classification
- flexibility monitoring to determine the need for post-disposal l
- 6. DOE endorses the following aspects of the standards: '
- lists of major constituents and concentration limits
.I
- use of liners only when appropriate
- provisions for land release prior to completion of groundwater r estoration
- use of institutional control
- use of natural cleansing as a means of restoration 7.
DOE endorses the basic intent of the proposed standards for protection of the public and environment: however. standards may cost in excess of $1 billion and, thus, they .may never be implemented.
- 8. DOE intends to submit a detailed report on potential impacts of the standards on the UMTRA Project and other 00E activities that reference.UMTRA standards as ARARst' DOE-requests a 90 day period-following the hearing to submit comments. .
V.
Testimony of the Colorado Department of Health (Howard Roitman) 1.
Comments are preliminary; Colorado requests a 60-day extension of the comment period following the hearing.
- 2. All UMTWA activities within Colorado must comply with-relevant stated law and policy; Colorado recognizes that groundwater restoration may not always be achievable at a reasonable cost.
3.
Cost-effectiveness of groundwater restoration should be reviewed on a case-specific basis.
4.
Colorado is concerned about the proposed institutional control provision because:
- no mechanism exists in Colorado to implement such
~
controls ;
i
- an institution needs to monitor groundwater quality during the control period and take necessary j
. corrective actions, which is a continuing UMTRA j Project responsibility proposed duration of the control period'is too lona:-
control period should be no longer than 20-30 years !
5.
Long-term monitoring is necessary and should be required b'y regulation.
6.
EPA should continue to be involved in implementing the standards, rather than deferring to NRC's discretion on such actions period.
as approving ACLs and extensions of the remedial action 7.
For disposal sites, groundwater should be protected to the maximum beneficial use and there should be no provisions for institutional controls.
~
.I 8.
Standards should explicitly recogni:e the role of States and Tribes in the decision-making process - ACLs. RAP. '
Corrective Action Plans, extending the remedial action certod.
9.
Rather than requiring liners. EPA should requtre thet covers be as " impermeable" as reasonably achievable and geochemical barriers should be used beneath the tallinos where necessary.
10.
States and Tribes should be directly involved in modelino decisions.
11.
EPA should specify a minimum set of criteria.for approving groundwater models, including: validation, calibration, peer review, and public access.
12.
The POC.may be an unreliable and costly requiredanti standards should provide some flexibility in establishing the POC.
The POC should be within the licensed area. The standards should provide criteria for selecting the POC.
including. potential water uses; toxicity, mobility, and persistence of constituents; hydrogeologic characteristics: and economic reasonableness.
VI. Testimony of Kennedy) the American Minino Conaress.(Ed Still and Ed 1.
AMC is concerned about the basis for the uranium concentration limit; EPA's 30pCi/l limit is based on a non-stochastic ALI. yet ICRP recommends that a stochastic ALI be used. AMC is also unaware of any study that de;nonstra tes cancer risks associated with ingestion of U-nat. Thus, uranium is chemically toxic rather than radiologically toxic. j j
2.
AMC could not prepare detailed comments on the proposed standards and, therefore, requests that the. comment period be extended by 90 days.
3.
EPA's proposed standards are, at least, moving in the right i direction because they provide greater flexibility for making site-specific decisions. j I
1 4.
EPA should reexamine the entire uranium mill tailings i regulatory program in light of the NAS/NRC study on uranium mill tailings elsks and the draft BEIR IV report that addresses radon risk in deoth. ,
i S. The standards should provide for consideration of other I
natural processes besides natural restoration (e.g.,
geochemical retardation) and consider the geologic system beneath the tailings as part of the disposal system.
- 6. ,
Perched groundwater caused by impoundment seepage should '
.I either be considered Class III groundwater or not constoered l groundwater a t all . '
?. EPA's proposed criterion for defining Class III groundwater of 150 gpd well vield is too smalls the limit should be increased to 900 gpd.
VII. Testimony of LLWM/NRC (Michael Weber) l
{
- i. Comments are preliminary; testimony summart res commen ts provided to EPA on October 26. 1987. NRC intends to meet with EPA within 30 days and provide formal agencv comments withtn eu days after that meeting. f
]
- 2. The proposed revisions to the standards do not appear to be i consistent with the remedial action program as intended in {
{
UMTRCA. The proposed standards need to take into account that j legislative changes may be needed to implement the proposed i standards.
3.
EPA's requirement for post-disposal monitoring appears to duplicate aspects of the post-disposal monitoring and surveillance activities to be implemented under NRC license.
1
- 4. Numerouh portions of the standards are unclear and lend themselves to alternative interpretations of the same standards (e.g., applicability to vicinity properties, {
i grandfathering substantially complete sites). EPA needs to
- clarify the standards to eliminate ambiguous language that may impede implementation of the proposed standards.
- 5. Several portions of the proposed standards appear to be absolute and do not provide sufficient flexibility for site-specific decision making (e.g., preven t con tamina tion ,
wherever monitoring).
constituents are projected to be found, upgradient
- 6. Numerous portions of the proposed standards for inactive uranium tailings sites are inconsistent with those for the active sites. These inconsistencies have not been adequately justified in the preamble or background documentation.
VIII. Testimony of the Cotter Corocration (Angela Jancowsey)
- 1. EPA should integrate Title I and Title II standards and assess the impacts of the proposed standards on Title II sites as well as other activities that may use the proposed standards as ARARs.
2.
until Promulgation of the final standards should be postponed after EPA has completed a comprehensive study of the goals and structure for a regulatory program for uranium mill tailings.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ ~
.I
- 3. Cotter disagrees with EPA's limits for uranium and molybdenum; recommends changing as tollows:
- uranium limit should be 0.1 mg/1. based on mass, rather
- than activity
- molybdenum li.mit should be at least 0.2 mg/l
- 5. Once restoration limits are set, the proposed standards should provide sufficient flexibility to allow selection of the most cost-effective corrective action program.
IX. Testimony of the Navajo Tribe (Carol Boughton) 1.
Requested extension of the comment period through November 30, 1987.
2.
Liner requirement should be imposed at all new disposal sites consistent with Title II regulations.
3.
Land should groundwater has been not be cleaned released up. until after all contaminated j
4.
Inappropriate to consider groundwater quality in determining *the need for groundwater restoration since the Navajo had no choice about where they live.
- 5. Institutional controls cannot be implemented on the l reservation.
{
6.
Natural restoration should be used only in conjunction with induced restoration.
7.
ACLs should not be considered until after corrective l
actions have reduced concentrations as low as possible.
l 8.
ACLs.
EPA should not delegate its authority to NRC to establish l
- 9. EPA should not develop a list of constituents and concentration limits; the standards should also consider i
"non-hazardous" constituents.
10.
Post-closure monitoring should be required for 100 years, 11.
NRC should modify its regulations to incorporate provisions for transfer, storage, and management of uranium mill tailings.
- 12. Uranium toxicity should consider chemical as well as radiological toxicity; health limits should also consider impacts on agricultural productivity.
13.
Title II standards should be revised to correct any
, i u______________________1_______________._________________-.________ _ ___ _ _ _ __ - . _ . _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i l
.I .I deficiencies.
14 EPA's estimated costs of groundwater restoration reasonable.
- appear
- - . , , 1 i
The public hearin9 terminated at approximately a.*o D.m.' * -
Rf1S T . j I
l
{
i
~
f l
l i
1 k
i f
I l l
)
}
l I
EllCLOSURE 2 WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA 1 .
TESTIMONY OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 2 ON EPA'.S PROPOSED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE URANIUM MILL 3 SITES (40 CFR PART 192, SUBPARTS A-C) 4 OCTOBER 29, 1987 AT THE STRATER HOTEL, DURANGO, CO 5 Michael F. Weber, Division of Low-Level Waste Management 6 and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 7 Good morning, my name is Michael Weber and I represent the staff of the 8 Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning of the U.S. Nuclear
. 9 Regulatory Commission. The NRC staff would like to thank the Environmental 10 Protection Agency for the opportunity to comment in this forum on EPA's i 11 proposed standards for groundwater protection at inactive uranium tailings 12 sites (proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 192). Together with our preliminary 13 comments on the proposed standards and the comments to be received after the 14 hearing, the NRC staff considers that this hearing is an effective forum for 15 the public to interact in the standards-setting process.
16 The proposed standards are important to NRC's execution of its responsibilities 17 under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This 18 act directs the NRC to execute several actions, including to (1) concur with 19 the selection and performance of remedial action performed by the Department of 20 Energy at each of 24 designated uranium processing sites, (2) concur with the 21 completion of remedial action at each site in accordance with the EPA standards 22 for such action, and (3) license the long-term custody of the disposal sites to 23 ensure that the sites are adequately monitored, maintained, and controlled to 24 protect the public health and safety and the environment. NRC's execution of 25 its responsibilities under UMTRCA have been partially hampered because of the 26 lack of general environmental standards for ' groundwater protection at the 27 inactive uranium mill tailings sites.
WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA 28 EPA's proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 192, at 52 FR 36000, should 29 significantly reduce the uncertainties associated with site wecific decisions 30 for groundwater protection at the sites. The proposed standards incorporate a 31 number of features that will facilitate their implementation by NRC and DOE in 32 the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial action (UMTRA) Project. For example, the 33 proposed standards include a decision-making process that is more simple and 34 efficient than that included in EPA's standards for active uranium and thorium 35 mills in Subparts D and E of 40 CFR Part 192 because the standards do not 36 require EPA concurrences with their site-specific implementat.vn. Adoption of 37 portions of the hazardous waste regulations from Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 264 l
38 helps provide flexibility that is needed to optimize solutions for groundwater
, 39 contamination problems at existing sites.
40 Preliminary NRC staff review of the proposed standards has identified several 41 significant issues that the NRC anticipates it will further address in its 42 formal comments on the proposed groundwater protection standards. These issues j 43 can be categorized as (1) legal and procedural issues, (2) clarity, (3) 44 absoluteness, and (4) inconsistencies between the EPA standards for the active
! 45 uranium and thorium mills and the proposed revisions for the inactive sites.
l 46 My testimony today will briefly summarize the Division of Low-Level Waste 47 Management and Decommissioning's general comments that were described in our 48 letter to EPA dated October 26, 1987, and the preliminary draft comments which 49 were enclosed with that letter. Here is a copy of the October 26 letter for i 50 the record [ Hand copy to recorder and to Hearing Chairman]. These comments are 51 considered preliminary because they have not yet undergone complete review 52 within the NRC.
53 Legal and Procedural Issues 4
54 LLWM staff note that the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 192 do not appear to 55 be consistent with the remedial action program as provided in UMTRCA. Section 56 108 of UMTRCA requires DOE to select and perform remedial action in accordance 57 with the EPA standards at designated processing sites. In addition, Section
- l
. \
l i
WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA (
)
i i
58 104(f) . requires that DOE certify completion of remedial action at the 59 processing sites in accordance with EPA's standards with the concurrence of the
{
60 NRC. Section 112 of UMTRCA terminates DOE's authority to perform the remedial I 61 action program in March 1990. DOE cannot complete the remedial action program j l
62 until it has demonstrated compliance on a site-specific basis with EPA's !
63 standards. The proposed revisions to Subparts A-C of 40 CFR Part 192 require l 64 00E to restore contaminated aquifers at processing sites as appropriate, which 65 may require up to 100 years to complete. Therefore, DOE may not be able to I 66 complete remedial action and demonstrate compliance with EPA's standards until 67 long af ter its authority to conduct the remedial action program expires. !
68 The NRC staff is aware of legislative proposals by DOE to extend the UMTRA 69 Project until 1994. Nevertheless, DOE may not be able to cleanup contaminated 70 groundwater and demonstrate compliance with the proposed cleanup standards in 71 Subpart B by 1994. 'In addition, the NRC staff's review of the legislative !
72 history of UMTP.CA indicates that a 100-year duration of the UMTRA Project is 73 considerably greater than the remedial action program envisioned by the U.S.
74 Congress when UMTRCA was established in 1978. Thus, it appears that the 75 proposed standards need to take into account that legislative changes may be j 76 needed to implement the proposed standards.
j 77 Moving onto the preliminary draft comments that were enclosed in our letter to 78 EPA dated October 26, 1987, EPA's proposed requirement for a post-disposal
! 79 monitoring program appears to duplicate the groundwater monitoring program to 80 be established under NRC license for long-term custody of the disposal sites.
81 EPA's proposed standard in 40 CFR Part 192.20(b) requires DOE to implement a l 82 monitoring program during the post-disposal period to demonstrate that initial 83 performance of the disposal complies with the design requirements in 40 CFR 84 Part 192.02(a). This requirement is in itself somewhat unclear because it 85 references the design requirements in 192.02(a), including the standards for 86 long-term control and radon emanation limits. According to the footnote 1 in 87 192.02(a), the long-term control and radon emanation limits are design 88 standards only and do not require post-disposal monitoring to demonstrate
WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA 89 compliance. Groundwater monitoring programs established under 40 CFR Part 90 192.20(b) duplicate, in part, the surveillance and. maintenance program to be 91 performed under NRC license. As stipulated in UMTRCA Section 104(f)(2), the 92 NRC will license the disposal sites to ensure performance of any tuonitoring, 93 maintenance, or emergency actions to ensure protection of the public health and 94 safety and the environment, or other actions as may be necessary to comply with 95 the EPA standards. Appropriate groundwater monitoring will be required under 96 NRC's license to ensure protection against substantial hazards to the public 97 and environment. Therefore, EPA's' requirement for post-disposal monitoring 98 appears to duplicate a portion of the surveillance and monitoring program to be 99 implemented under NRC license.
100 Clarity 101 There are numerous portions of the proposed standards tht.t lend themselves to 102 alternative interpretations as a result of unclear wording. Based on NRC l 103 staff's experience with the UMTRA Project, ambiguous wording and multiple 104 interpretations of the same standards may fuel considerable controversy and
- 105 impede implementation of the standards in the remedial. action program. I 106 For example, the applicability of Subparts A-C is not clearly stated in the
- 107 text of the standards or the preamble. The text and preamble only discuss 108 application of the standards at existing processing sites and new disposal 109 sites. However, EPA's definition of land in Subpart B appears to include 110 subsurface land containing groundwater that has been contaminated by listed 1 111 constituents at vicinity properties that contain residual radioactive materials l 112 from designated processing sites. If correctly interpreted here, the proposed 113 standards could extensively expand the UMTRA Project by requiring groundwater 114 monitoring and potential cleanup at the more than 6000 vicinity properties that.
115 have been identified to date.
116 As another example, the preamble on page 36006 (Column 1) states that 00E will 117 have to determine if additional remedial action is necessary to demonstrate l
WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA 118 compliance with the new groundwater protection standards at those sites where i
119 remedial action is substantially complete (i.e., Canonsburg, Shiprock, Salt 120 Lake, and Lakeview). The preamble states that additional remedial action may 121 be necessary to cleanup contaminated groundwater at these sites. The preamble 122 and standards do not state, however, whether EPA intends for DOE to enhance 123 containment at these sites if DOE cannot demonstrate compliance with the 124 proposed disposal standards in Subpart A. EPA needs to clarify its intent with 125 respect to requiring additional remedial action at sites where disposal of the 126 residual contaminated materials is substantially complete, especially since DOE 127 has already submitted remedial action completion reports to the NRC for two of l 128 these sites. l I
129 LLWM staff preliminary comments on the proposed rule, which were transmitted to 130 EPA on October 26, 1987, provide additional examples of unclear portions of the i 131 standards. LLWM sta'ff suggests that EPA revise the proposed standards to 132 eliminate ambiguous language that may impede implementation of the groundwater 133 protection standards prior to promulgating final standards.
134 Absoluteness l
135 Several portions of the proposed standards appear to be very absolute and do 136 not appear to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate site-specific 137 decision making. This absoluteness is inappropriate because DOE will not be i
138 able to demonstrate compliance with absolute requirements. For example, the 139 proposed standards in 192.20(a)(2) require DOE to use a liner or equivalent 140 under certain circumstances to " prevent" groundwater contamination. The use of 141 the word " prevent" is absolute and precludes logical implementation of the 142 standards. Absolute assurance of contamination prevention cannot be achieved l 143 for the long periods of time required by the standards (i.e., 1000 years and, 144 in any case, at least 200 years). DOE will not be able to demonstrate that 145 disposal sites will prevent contamination over these long time periods.
146 Natural processes through time will leach and transport finite quantities of
l WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA I 147 contami.nants from the tailings to groundwater, thus causing groundwater 148 contamination.
149 As another example, the standard in 192.20(c)(4)(ii) references "wherever 150 contamination by listed constituents from residual radioactive materials is 151 found in groundwater, or is projected to be' found." This phrase may be 152 interpreted absolutely, so that the remedial action period may not be extended 153 up to 100 years because one atom or molecule of a listed constituent is 154 projected to be found outside of the extent of institutional controls. Based 155 on the preamble and EPA's Background Information Document, such an absolute 156 interpretation of the standard does not appear to be EPA's intent in 157 establishing the standard.
158 As another example, proposed 192.02(a)(3)(iv) requires establishment of a 159 groundwater monitoring program "upgradient of the disposal site" to determine 160 background levels of listed constituents. NRC' staff agrees with EPA about the 161 need to establish background levels of listed constituents. However, 00E may 162 not be able to establish background levels by monitoring upgradient groundwater 163 quality because (1) groundwater does not exist upgradient from the disposal 164 site, (2) groundwater upgradient of the site may have already been contaminated 165 with constituents released from residual radioactive materials, or (3) it is 166 extremely difficult or impossible to monitor groundwater quality upgradient j 167 from the site. Each of these situations would preclude DOE from demonstrating 168 compliance with the background monitoring requirement in 192.02(a)(3)(iv), even '
169 though DOE may be able to develop reasonable estimates of background quality by 170 considering other sources of information (e.g., historical data, monitoring 171 data from nearby locations, geochemical assessments).
172 Consistency Between Active and Inactive Site Standards 173 The proposed standards for groundwater protection at inactive sites differ in 174 several aspects from the EPA standards for active uranium and thorium mills at 175 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts 0 and E. The LLWM staff has not found an adequate
i l
WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA l 176 justifi. cation for these differences in the preamble that accompanies the 177 proposed standards. LLWM staff's comments on the proposed EPA standards, which I 178 were delivered to EPA on October 26, 1987, provide more detailed preliminary 179 comments about the dif ferences between the standards for groundwater protection 180 at active and inactive uranium mill sites.
l 181 Although EPA discusses several of the differences between the active and J 182 inactive site standards, the preamble does not systematically assess these 183 differences in terms of their need and impacts on the regulatory programs for 184 uranium mill tailings, l
185 In the time since EPA proposed the groundwater protection standards for i 186 inactive uranium sites, LLWM staff has assessed the apparent differences l
187 between the EPA standards for active uranium mills and the proposed standards.
188 Based on this preliniinary assessment, several differences between EPA's 189 groundwater protection standards for active and inactive uranium mill sites are 190 apparent:
191 Active Site Standards Inactive Site Standards i
192 Corrective actions may not rely on Corrective actions may rely, at j l 193 natural restoration. least in part, on natural 194 restoration.
195 No reliance on institutional controls Limited reliance on institutional '
196 to protect against inadvertent use controls to protect against 197 of contaminated groundwater. inadvertent use of contaminated 198 groundwater.
199 No provisions for supplementary Provisions for granting 200 standards. supplementary standards.
j
A WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA 201 No post-disposal monitoring required Post-disposal monitoring 202 to confirm performance of disposal required to confirm initial 203 design. performance of disposal design.
204 No specified point of compliance. Point of compliance (40 CFR Part 205 264.95) is imposed.
206 Closure performance standard applies Closure performance standard 207 to non-radiological constituents only. applies to both non-radiological 208 and radiological constituents.
I l 209 Long-term control (1000 yrs) for Long-term control (1000 yrs) 210 radiological hazards only. for both radiological and non-211 radiological hazards. !
212 Corrective action required as Stand along corrective action 213 specified in 40 CFR Part 264.100. requirement.
214 Add uranium and molybdenum to Add uranium, radium, molybdenum, 215 list of hazardous constituents. and nitrate to list of listed 216 constituents.
217 Add concentration limits for Add concentration limits for 218 gross-alpha and radium-226/228. uranium, molybdenum, nitrate, 219 gross-alpha, and radium-226/228.
220 EPA concurrence for delisting No EPA concurrence required for 221 hazardous constituents and Alternate site-specific implementation of 222 Concentration Limits. the standards.
R l
l
- l WM-39/MFW/87/10/27/ EPA I
223 Although EPA addressed several of these dif ferences (e.g. , addition of 224 molybdenum and nitrate to the list of listed constituents), the preamble that 225 accompanies the proposed standards does not appear to justify most of the 226 differences between EPA's standards for groundwater protection at active and 227 inactive uranium mill sites. i i
228 Concluding Remarks 229 This concludes my summary of the general comments transmitted in LLWM's letter 230 to EPA dated October 26, 1987, and the preliminary draft comments that were 231 enclosed in that letter. The NRC staff appreciates the opportunity to present 232 its preliminary comments on the proposed standards for groundwater protection 233 at inactive uranium mill sites as part of the public comment process. In order 234 to respond to EPA within the 30-day comment period on the proposed standards, 235 we have forwarded preliminary comments from the Division of LLWM to EPA on 236 October 26, 1987, and summarized them briefly in this public hearing today. If 237 there are any discrepancies between my testimony today and the October 26 238 letter, the remarks in the letter should take precedence. As stated in the i i
239 October 26 letter, the NRC staff seeks the opportunity to meet with EPA staff 1 i
240 to discuss the NRC staff's preliminary comments. We propose to meet with EPA 241 staff by November 29, 1987, and plan to transmit formal NRC comments on the l 242 proposed standards within 60 days of that meeting. In addition, we welcome and 243 encourage public comment on the LLWM staf f's preliminary comments on the 244 proposed groundwater protection standards for inactive uranium tailings sites 245 or on any other aspect of the NRC's participation in the Uranium Mill Tailings 246 Remedial Action Project.
247 Thank you.
l E_---_---__----_------ ._ l