ML20214N357
| ML20214N357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/11/1986 |
| From: | Goller K NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Ernst M NRC - RESEARCH INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q655 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46425, FRN-51FR24697, RULE-PR-40 AB56-1-49, NUDOCS 8609160259 | |
| Download: ML20214N357 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:*
- ~ i l
i
,p" * " " * ' ' UNITED STATES c' y 7. NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION 3
)y wassincroN. o c. 20sss e
S,y- ,/ p p i '. il d MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm Ernst, Chairman RES Independent Review Board FROM: Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
TASK LEADER EVALUATION OF NMSS RULEMAKING ENTITLED " URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS: GROUND WATER PROTECTION AND OTHER ISSUES" Enclosed is the review which was requested for this ongoing NMSS rulemaking. If you need any further information, please contact Clark
'Prichard of my staff on extension (X74586).
. 0, i
/m rd i P .'
Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research , I i l o lI i'
~,
$$k91$j259860904 40 5tFR24697 PDR 1
,r ,' * ., I i-f i i i f i 4 1 i. i 4 0 } 1 t i. i f. i 1 4 E. 1 ' ENCLOSURE i i RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW EVALUATION i i i . consisting of: I a { ' 1. MEMO TO EDO FROM OFFICE DIRECTOR i ' ! 2. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION t . } 3. QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION . i 1 f iI d A ', e i+ 1, - i l' i t i l 3 s t i
~
I.--.._-.,-...,_...._..--_,., . _ , _ , - _ . _ .-- .- _ _ -
4 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW 0F ONGOING - NMSS-SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing NMSS sponsored rulemaking, " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Oth'er Issues," RES recomends that NRC should continue this specific ongoing rulemaking. The basis for our recommendation is as follows: o The Commission has instructed the staff to continue to develop regulations to implement the EPA mill tailings standards for groundwater protection. o The action proposed by N to insert the clearly non-discretionary groundwater protection ;- ei. .ons of the EPA standard in Part 40-- is a cost-effective way cf ca out the Comission's directive. The complete RES independent 4 package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DED R0GR) and to the Director. Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DISTRIBUTION SUBJ/ CIRC /CHRON RF (2) Prichard Galler Grill Ross Costan:1 Minogue gg MErnst
/ /86
- RES:0RPES :RES:DD :RES:D :
0FC: RES:k :RES: % :RES:WMB
.......... ......... 6 r.... 9 ....................................................-
i :FC nzi :KRGoller. :0FRoss :RBMinogue : NAME:Prgi DATE: 3 lk d/mb :t. Gr
- ; :if..p' : /g/.: .
...-- - _ . _..- _ - - . . . . . - . _ . _ _ . - - - . . . . - - - . - - - ~ _ _ . - . . - . -
- e:
1 f I DRAFT RECOMMEkDATION j' e i f l RES recommends that this rulemaking should be continued. There is no l- valid reason not to continue it in view of the legislative directhe tc NRC t to conform its mill tailings regulations to the EPA standards. t J l 1 i-1 4 e 1 i- ) i I) i b* t I. ) !i
.i if if i
i t 4 -
- _4,
-m W
% 4 8
I k I lL
?
i QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION l [ l I l d 5
-, o The issue to be addressed is how NRC should respond to the requirement of the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 (P.L. 97-415) that NRC conform its tailings regulations to the final EPA standards.
Alternatives are simply incorporating the EPA standards into Part 40 by reference, inserting the clearly non-diserttionary ground-water provisions of the EPA standard in Part 40, and development of a new Part to fulfill the , statutory requirement. The recommended alternative, to insert the clearly non-discretionary ground-water provisions of the EPA standard in Part 40, is the most effective course for the agency to pursue at this point. The reasons are the current depressed state of the uranium mining industry in the U.S. and the scant ' likelihood that the licensing burden in this area will be' heavy in'the near future; in view of this situation, the inadvisability of expending significant scarce NRC res'ources for rulemaking to accomplish this requirement; and the large difference in manpower resources required between the preferred alternative and developing a completely new Part. In addition, simply incorporating the EPA standard by reference is not an efficient way of conducting this rulemaking. Inconsistencies can very likely continue to exist due to the difficulty of
^
eliminating them by simple reference to another-standard of a different agency. . I The basis for a recommendation that this rulemaking should be continued is clear; current policy and planning guidance from the Commission states that "the staff shall continue to develop regulations to implement the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mill tailings standards for groundwater protection," (p.33,1986 NRC Policy and Planning Guidance, NUREG - 0885, Issue 5) i f Impacts of this.rulemaking would principally be on uranium mill licensees, with secondary impacts falling on purchasers of uranium should the rulemaking significantly affect costs of uranium production. Since the action to 1
. . . - , - - - - - - - ----r--,-,.--..--,---.,-.-,w.------,.,-----%,.- - - - - - .- , . - - - , -.,.-- . - - .. - - . -~..---..
eliminate inconsistencies is requirec by law however, NRC control over impacts is limited. . The estimate of NRC resources required to carry out the recomended action,1.5 F.T.E. is consistent with past rulemaking experience. We also note that the Commission approved the proposed rulemaking on April 14, 1986, with all Commissioners agreeing. (See Enclosed memorandum from SECY to the EDO). i O e 9 i O e 2 i
3+ M - Py_T UNITED STATSS ACTION - Davis g* f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys: Stello
; y wasMinofow.ox.20ses Roe Rehm P Sniezek
***** April 14, 1986 .Minoaue _
opres op rus GCunningham ssenstany Fonner - Dragonette RMartin Felton Shelton Grimsley MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. Philips Executive Director for Operations - Kerr, SP FROM: J. Chilk, Secretary
SUBJECT:
SECY-86 PROPOSED RULEMAKING " URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS: GROUND-WATER PROTECTION AND OTHER ISSUES" This is to advise you that the Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing)'has approved the proposed rulemaking. You should forward the Federal Register Notice for signature
- and publication and make the appropriate notification to Congress, licensees and the public. .
(EDO/OPA/OCA) (SECY SUSPENSE: 4/30/86) cc: Chairman Palladino commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine - i Commissioner Bernthal l Commissioner Zech
. OGC OPE Rec'd Off. ED0 Datt Y'I b Time MdO I s
Cy: Ross I G. Marcus ' . f -, Galler/Conti He File (0&M-SECY) l
.- J . .L i_: . _ - - _ . - - - - - ._. ,- -
j o . b e e
~ RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM AJA 55 G
e t 6 l i ,1 l i e n
. +4 -
, m-_
- O y e
e I e e 0FFICE WIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM 10155 w w e 1 l l l l l i l l I , I
- - a - ,
8 #g UNITED STATES 8 e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 E 3
\,..../
MAR 19 M MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards SUBJE,CT:~ CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING - E00 ANNUAL REVIEW Enclosed is our package for the ED0's rulemaking review. It supports the , rulemaking entitled, Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground-Water Protection and Other Issues."
.Since the ED0's approval of May 29, 1985, we have develop.ed a proposed rule.
The proposal was sent to the Coninission on February 5,1986. SECY-86-43 is part of the enclosed package. I A , i ohn G. D'vis, a Director l
' Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
EDO Rulemaking Review Package l p I h h 9d
REGULATORY AGENDA TITLE:
' + Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION:
10.CFR 40 ABSTRACT: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking requested comments 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 i - consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. Alternatives to this action involve timing and scope. Comments on the ANPRM will 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 requirements recently promulgated will cost the industry 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 tne interim. TIMETABLE: ANPRM PUBLISHED 11/26/84 49FR 46425
- ANPRM COMMENT PERIOD BEGIN 11/26/84 50FR 2293 ANPRM COMMCNT PERIOD END 03/01/85 - , PROPOSED RULE FOR DIVISION REVIEW ]2/02/85 0FFICE CONCURRENCE ON PROPOSED RULE COMPLETED 01/24/86 ,
PROPOSED RULE PACKAGE TO EDO- 01/30/86 SECY-86-43 SENT TO COMMISSION 02/05/86 PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED 05/23/86 FINAL RULE PUBLISHED 04/22/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON Sf!ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i AGENCY CONTACT:
- Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D. C. 20555 301 427-4300 9
5 I
NMSS OFFICE FINDING ON PROPOSED RULENAKING (REVISION 11 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground-water 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 also be
. appropriate to assure that NRC regulations for mill tailings are fully comparable to EPA's requirements for similar hazardous wastes.
- 2. Nee'd The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) as
- amended contains two mandates. One is to conform to the EPA standards in 40 CFR 192. Confomance was to be completed within 6 months after final EPA standards were issued (i.e., by April 1, 1984). The companion rulemaking is based solely 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 inearporated some of its permitting regulatiuns by reference into its mill tailings standards but .
l 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 and EPA regulations. The new part could include covering uranium recovery activities not specifically addressed by current regulations
~
(e.g., in situ operations) and comprehensive new requirements based on EPA's f'uT) range of requirements. Initial plans were to follow an approach somewhere between these two extremes, but closer to the compre-hensive new part than the simple incorporation by reference. The current state of the domestic uranium industry 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
~
, . . - - ._ __ __ .-- _ T _ _ - _ _ z _ _ - _-_ - _
mills remain in operation. This downturn in production means a corresponding downturn in licensing activity. Few if any new conventional sites are anticipated and the regulatory focus will be on interim stabilization and decomnissioning. Application of the ground-water provisions of 40 CFR 192 and referencea ditcretionary provisions to existing sites will involve site specific decisions and would not benefit greatly from generic rulemaking. 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-ters regulatory strategy for uranium recovery. The Overview of the State of the Uranium Industry for Rulemaking Purposes indicated as Background Reference 13 provides more detail on this issue. A comprehensive rulemaking would involve considerable resources (several FTE over a period of 3-4 years}. The usefulness of new regulations or major revisions has diminished to the point where less formal 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 were considered by staff:
- a. Fulfill the confonnance mandate by a simple incorporation by reference in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 to the ground-water standards in 40 CFR Part 192. Guidance documents would be developed to solve problems such a reference would cause. For example, hard to '
get cross-referenced EPA rules as codified January 1. 1983 would need to be provided and raintained. Guidance on other aspects to clarify minimum requirements, functional responsibilities, retrofitting guidance etc. yould also be prepared. Any action to develop acditior.al discretionary regulations would be deferred indefinitely. The second Congressional mandate contains no time frame and refers, to general requirements not regulations.
- b. Fulfill the conformance mandate by inserting the clearly 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 atternative. This alternative would basically involve taking initial staff thinking reflected in the Browning to Smith memorandum dated April 1, 1985 (Reference 14) and developing a proposed rule based on it.
,, , ,.,__..,._,,-n.-,
.. .o
- c. Proceeding with oevelopment of new part as originally planned.
The extended comment period on the ANPRM ended March 1, 1985. Comments 4 received were examined to provide input on defining the scope of rulemaking that should be undertaken. The results are documented in the staff analysis shown in Reference 12. The analysis was. structured to address the three alternatives listad above. Pros and cons for each alternative are summarized .
- 4. Prooosed Action Based on connents on the ANPRM, the state of the industry, and staff judgment, Alternative b. is recusmended. Some of the principal reasons for this reconnendation are summarized in the following discussion.
Alternatives a. and b. are not significantly different in timing and resource connitment. The difference should only be 2-3 months and less than 0.5 FTE. Much of the explanatory text and editing decisions on Alternative b. should be done anyway for guidance documents, for responding to comments, and for understanding what incorporation by reference really means. The real decision is whether to proceed with Alternative c. or not Alternative.c. could involve more than 10 FTE over a period of 3-4 years, depending on the final scope of the new part. The current depressed state of the industry and projections on the future state of the industry suggests that NRC should limit expenditure of resources for rulemaking applicable to licensing new conventional mills. State of the industry input favors Alternatives a. and b. The major points leading to this conclusion are:
- a. Industry is certainly oepressed now.
- b. Slow recovery is expected but the timing and degree are uncertain. .
- c. Forecasts indicate 11ttle activity for at least.five years.
- d. Solution (in situ) mining may be the most active technology in the near-term.
- v. Mechanisms exist for NRC to reassess the need for more comprehensive rulemaking based on market trends.
Completing conformance simply and quickly and deferring comprehensive l rulemaking has several other timing advantages. It minimi:es use of resources until court cases are settled and EPA issues standards for other mining and milling wastes. Experience from implementation can be used to identify problem areas. The technology can nature. The difficult climate for consensus because of divergent views and lack of data and decision on risks and health effects may diminish as EPA's programs mature. Since the potential for deferred rulemaking would still exist under Alternatives a.
~
_ _ - _ _ - - - _ - . . - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ . _ - - __ =__ - __ 9 and b., some regulatory uncertainty would exist but all rules are subject to change when 'tice periods of 5-10 years are involved. Alternatives a. and b. would minimize the near term uncertainty. Alternative b. would result in a rule that stands alone and clarifies what has been imposed. It allows focus on general standards and provides for implementing details to guidance documents and case specific decisions in keeping with NRC's usual regulatory approach.
- 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.
Reduced rulemaking scope will involve more case specific decisions on the part of licensees and licensing staff. Alternative b. will clarify what
~
NRC and the States must implement and enforce and thereby reduce
, uncertainties.
- 6. Resources and Schedule Because all the substantive requirements involved in Alternative b. are nondiscretionary, the extent of value/ impact analysis was limited. The proposed rule 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 Flexibility Act. As discussed in the proposed rule, a Regula-tory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Based on staff experience with the first step rulemaking, which also involved nondiscretionary changes, the rulemaking will take at least a
. year and a half and take about 1.5 FTE to complete. SECY-8o-4$wassent to the Commission on February 5,1986. We plan to issue a proposed rule-for public comment by May 23, 1986 and a final rule by April 22, 1987.
- _ _ _ _ 1
4 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 Commissioners from Dircks, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523 and 523A)," March 2, 1984. -
I -
- 5. Memora'ndum for the Comissioners from OGC, " Proposed Amendments to Uranium
- Mill . Tailings Regulations (SECY-83-523 and -523A)," March 14, 1984.
- 6. Memorandum for the Commissioners from the Chairman, " Tentative Recommendations 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 Amendments to i Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Policy Statement," July 25,1984.
! 9. Memorandum for Dircks from Chilk, " Commission Act on Uranium Mill Tailings-Regulations " November 2,1984. .
- 10. FRN 49 FR 46425 dated November 26,1984. ,
- 11. FRN 50 FR 2293 dated January 16, 1985.
- 12. Staff Analysis of Public Comments on ANPRM for 10 CFR 40, May 1985.
- 13. Overview of the State of the Uranium Industry for Rulemaking Purposes, December 1985.
- 14. Memorandum for R.D. Smith from R.E. Browning dated 4/1/85.
- 15. Memorandum for W. Dircks- from J. Davis dated 6/28/85.
- 16. Memorandum for V. Ste11o from J. Davis dated 6/30/85.
~
a b .* 5 5 s ang
^
/ COHTROL
[ TER
% .g. 13 M M RULEMAKING ISSUE (Notation Vote)
February 5,1986 SECY-86-43 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"
. Puroose:
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 t'he mandate to conform in t o ' 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 i incorporated the stability and radon release provisions of the EPA standards. Contacts: K.Oragonette, HMSS 427-4300 L R. Fonner, ELD WM Project i; 492-8692 WM Z 8tepp/sdpe Docket No. /- l; _. , g POR /
- LPco/
5W
$ co 4 # .r.eky 49 hshtion: 47 l
gg0 i FC (Return to WM. 623 SS) 1
.,,s -..,...,_.'w
. -.. . ~~e, ~.
, . ., 2 m .
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 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 sandate in section 84a(3) of the AEA is more general and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in I a manner that is comparable with EPA's requirements for management of similar hazardous saterial under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWOA). EPA incorporated some of its ! SWOA pemitting 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 rulemaking approaches. The proposed notice includes a discussion of the alternatives 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.
An important factor in selecti.ig this approach is the l current depressed state of the domestic uranium industry 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 emphasized by the latest 00E viability finding. On I l l I-- -- -- . - - _ - _. . . _= _. . . . - - .
2 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 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 SWDA requirements for the foreseeable future. The discussion in the notice under " Content of this Proposal" includes the objectives the proposed i 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 a Introduction, to Criteria 5, 6, and 7 and the addition of a
- new Criterion 13.
! The proposed modifications incorporate all of the standar'ds ,. staff believes were imposed by EPA with one exception. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v) would limit NRC's aulhority , l to make decisions on site specific alternative concentration limits and on site specific findings that a I' detected constituent from the waste is not a hazardous constituent. Because the Commission has alreacy stated its view that EPA exceeded its authority in so limiting NRC - action, and because the lietting conditions can be l misconstrued to apply to all alternate concentration limit ! cases, the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 40 do not include $192.21(a)(2)(iv) and (v). The staff considers t this issue a procedural one, rather than a matter of health i 1 l 6 D
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 (Enclosure A) under the Regulatory Flexibility Certification heading.
- 3. Note:
- a. Licensee compliance with Subparts D 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 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 9
?
. -- , ..n,.- ,.n_ --,, , _ . _ , . . . , . . , ,n -
* ,* O*
5-action and existing documents. The staff has not prepared additional environmental analyses and does not believe that additional environmental review would be produccive or beneficial.
- c. That the Chief Counsel for Advocac9 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 Energy and the 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 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 Registar.
- h. That copies of the notice will be distributed to all Commission uranium mill licensees and copies I
/:' I 1 , ,_-,e + ~ ~--
,-_.__~,--_____,_..,____.,_.._.
will be provided to Agreement States for distribution to their uranium mill licensees.
? ... ' ' -
Victor Stello, Jr. Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A. Proposed Rule Notice B. ANPRM C. EPA Standard D. Oraft Public Announcement E. Draft Congressional t.etter Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided February directly 21, to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, 1986. , Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Fridav, Februarv 14, 1986, with an If the information copy to the Office of the Secretary. paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time the Commissioners and the for analytical review and comment, Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected. DISTRIBUTION: Co:nmissioners OGC . OPE OI OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES ~ EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ' ASLAP SECY G
.-r&
P* 6-e O h PROPOSED RULE NOTICE O f t l l ENCLOSURE A j l \ - .. - t
P O 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 it's 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 NRG Authorization Act for FY 1983 to conform the NRC regulations to the standards promulgated by the EPA.
I l DATE: The consent 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. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver cossents to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 am I i
6 6 L'www v4J 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, OC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4300. 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 .
VII. Cocrdination with EPA VIII. Content of this Proposal - IX. Impact of the Proposed Modifications and Regulatory Analysis Considerations l A. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact B. Costs and Benefits of the Modifications
- 1. Synthetic Liners
- 2. Alternatives to Synthetic Liners ,
,-- . 3. Ground-water Monitoring
- 4. Alternate Concentration Limits 2 .
- 5. Closure
- 6. Corrective Actions for Ground-water Contamination C. Impacts on Other Requirements and Persons D. Implementation E. Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed NRC Requirements X. Pap + "ork 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 rtquirements 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 i 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) h p to conform to the provisions of the EPA standards affecting matters other li i than ground-water protection.
J I 3 4 7 , . - - , . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ , _ - . . _ . - .,,....--., ._. . . _ , . . - - - - ._ . - - . - _ - _ , . _ ,
[7590-01] j EPA developed and issued its regulations pursuant to Section 275b. of 1 i 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 Radiati.on 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 commant. Comments are requested on choices and decisions the NRC must make concerning issues and actions that are within its discretion. Comments on the basic value, validity, lawfulness, or appro-priateness of EPA's SWDA regulations are not requested. II. OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ANPRM 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; I 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 protectiod~ modifications. Comments generally addressed this approach. Ten specific issues were listed in the ANPRM for comment and commenters 4
. ... _ .m., -_. _--,_ - _ ., _ _---,-_,,__.,,.,,,.,,,,,_-y,,,
F
! L/ouu-ulj addressed each of the ten issues. Commenters also repeated or referenced issues raised in comments submitted on the proposed rule for conforming to standards other than those pertaining to ground water protection (40 FR 46418; November 24, 1984). These comments were addre.ssed 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-
^
maki ng. 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 .
j 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. 1.11 cate-gories of commenters addressed the general or overall approach NRC should take. i 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 wasta rules in 40 CFR Part 264. Industry repeated and referenced arguments raised on the companion NRC rulemaking.that NRC ,j ] should reject the EPA standards and undertake an independent new rulemaking 5
. - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ ._______-_-_-_.---____1 _ 1. _ _ . _ _ - - _
t /:::90-01] 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 264.
EPA provided a copy of its recently published " Groundwater Protection Strategy"'and suggested that this document be considered in developing additional requirements, particularly on levels of ground-water cleanup. i III. SU MARY OF CCMMENTS 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 i offered or assertions made. In the following discussion, each issue is 1 i 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? Most.rommenters addressing this point supported paraphrasing. One . .-. ' state urged maximum comparability with the EPA standards on both procedural 6
- _ _ _ - - __ _.________z_ _
L /:vo-u13 and substantive aspects. EPA urged restatement except where administrative 1y 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 1nsertion in NRC regulations needs to make 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 abgve 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 1 of comments. Industry suggested that NRC develop a generic list of hazard-cus 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 ., constitue0ts will be controversial because of the lack of precision in estimating health effects from nonradiological materials.
,, , _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,--,,.,,m..-..--..,_,,m_. _ _ _ _ _ _ . .____.--% . ,,. ._. _ _
unuun 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 SWDA-comparable requirements to the maximum extent practicable. In this context, what is practicable given current practice and the current state of technology?
. Industry noted that the weight loading and hydraulic head in a tailings impounament 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 coilec- -
tion system. Industry pointed out the practical problem with* artificially dewatering tailings, particularly the slimes, and the cross purpose posed by the requirement for essentially immediInte emplacement of thick covers i i which would inhibit natural dewatering. 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 crimary 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
-~ -
ccnstituents, (2) corrective action to restore a::uf fers, and (3) the detailed information to approve alternate monitoring requirements. EPA and an environmental group commented that all of the EPA SWDA stancards are practicable. ' Issue (5): Should NRC retain the basic saquence 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 acvisanle, practicable or -
appropriate to require, for example, that all NRC licensees have approved
. ccepliance 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 automatic triggers to avoid delays. One commenter expressed concern about the need to accommodate the large size of tailings impoundsents in monitoring programs. One commenter noted that development of cerrtingency plans up front would help design for closure
- and corrective actien. One state urged maximum use of existing monitoring programs. Industry urged flexibiH ty to accommodate site specific ; circumstancess.
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 S
- - - _ .. _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.n_._- _ _ _ . _ _ _ -
um vy be maintained? What modifications, deletions, additions should be made? Industry noted that the 30 year post-closure care period in SWDA standards conflicts with the UMTRCA provisions for transfer to the govern-ment after stabilization. Industry also noted that the SWDA requirement for completing closure in 180 days after operations stop is inconsistent with the need to dewater tailings for 5 to 10 years before final stabili-zation. Some comments supported the basic SWDA scheme and expressed the view that sufficient flexibility exists to deal with site specific problems. States supported the concept of a post-closure phase in order to minimize the risk that the goverment agency providing long-tem 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 ,
s 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 J
10 1 1
detection of contamination, leak detection systems are subject to failure, and their long-term reliability has not been proven. Issue (8): How detailed should NRC's regulations be, and what should and should not be required in areas such as well construction, sampling analysis, determinations of annual average and seasonal background concentrations, minimum detection levels, statistical treatment of data and determinations of statistically significant differences, recordkeeping and reporting, quality assurance, etc? Two comments recommended specifying details concerning well construction to assure long-term reliable sampling, but the consensus in the comments was that the topics listed are more aopropriately addressed
~
inguidancedocuments. 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 j supporting environmental evaluations are needed for SWOA-camparable rule 6 changes except-for the requirements already imposed by the EPA, shduld the-l l MRC continue to proceed with only a single rulemaking to establish a complete set of SWDA-comparable requirements? Three commenters recommended a. single.rulamaking. .One state reemphasized the need for prompt NRC action. A state comment expressed the view that additional analyses would be a wasted effort because certain
. of the EPA-requirements arn "unsupportable." .One . industry comment reiterated that NRC must undertake comprehensive environmental evaluations
- u g , . - <- - ,m.- .- _ - , .
. . w... -,
e of.its own. An environmental group repeated its position that conformance coupled with additional rules to be RCRA comparable is a minor effort and of such limited scope not to constitute a major Federal action requiring additional support. EPA also expressed the view that minimal additional supporting analyses are needed for NRC to issue SWDA-comparable requirements. Issue (10): Is the flexibility cited in the proposed addition to the Introduction of Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 40, sufficient or should the hRC 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 o standards and concluded that there is no real difference in NRC's and EPA's approach that warrants any additional ' changes. - i i 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 i enforcement of the EPA s.tandards, art the . basis that.tha . EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192 are valid and consistent with EPA authority with one
. 12 4
*~ '
, [7590-01] exception. The exception is the requirement for EPA concurrence on l site specific decisions in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v). l (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) NRC can approve site specific alternatives to NRC and EPA standards proposed by licensees without EPA concurrence. . (5) Under section 2740(2) of the AEA, Agreement States are allowed to l adopt standards which are equivalent to or more stringent than those I promulgated by EPA or NRC.
~
j V. C099tISSION AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
~
A Commission statement on its authority and responsibility was included i; in both the. proposed rule notice (49 FR 46418; November. 26J841.and. the . - ANPRM. The statement described the Commission's view of the flexibility
] afforded under section 84c of the AEA and NRC authority to make independent site specific <iecisions.. The notice.of final rulemakiog (50.FR.41852; October 16, 1985) addressed the issues raised by commenters on the statement 13 l
.- _ - . - _ - _ _ ~ ".. . :L T . ~ T .~ r . . :_::. --- . -- - . - - _ - - . . -
. . w :v vu l l
. i 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 public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological harards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to,'to the extent practicaole, 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. l The Commission historically has had the authority and responsibility to regulate the activities of persons licensed under the Atomic Energy
. Act of 1954, as amended. Consistent.with that authority.and in accord- .
ance with section 84c. of that Act, the Commission has the discretion to
- review and approve site specific alternatives to standards promulgated by j' the Commission and by the Administrator of the Environmental.2ratection .
Agency. In the exercise of this authority, secti.on 84c. does not. require 14
[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 limits and delisting of hazardous constituents for specific sites. It should_be understood that the proposed conforming regulations deal with the exercise of the Commission's responsibility and authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, solely as regards uranium mill tailings sites and have no broader connotation.
. The Commission believes that licensee proposals for alternatives can be an important and effective way to help deal with the problems asso-ciated with implementing the new EPA standards. The Commission expects that it may require several years to have its conforming regulations fully in place. It expects to use the flexibility provided by section 84 in the-interim to consider and approve alternative proposals from licensees.
Section 84c. provides NRC sufficient authority to independently approve alternatives so long as the Commission can make the required detemination." VI. SCOPE OF THIS PROPOSAL The relevant Federal legislation on uranium mill tailings contains.two. f l 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 167 1985.(50 FR 41852) responded.to this mandate but..only-partially .... fulfills it since ground-water provisions of the EPA standards were not 15
. '. u ow vu incorporated. The second mandate in section 84a(3) of the AEA is more il general and directs NRC to assure that mill tailings are managed in a manner that is comparable with EPA's requirements for management of similar hazardous material under SWDA. EPA incorporated some of its SWDA permit-ting regulations by reference into its mill tailings standards but left to NRC discretion 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. l
. . Three specific alternatives were considered for this rulemaking:
P
. 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.
l
- 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
~
c1osely related referenced standards.' This alternative would alminate 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
- 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 stste 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 urantus 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) solution (,in situ) mining may be the most active technology in the near-term, and (5) NRC can reassess the need for more comprehensive rulemaking based on industry and DOE analyses of market trends and licensing A
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 Energy informed the President that the uranius industry was not dabla. . . . .
. 17
u2=u-ulj The poor outlook for domestic production means a ccreesponding down- - turn in new facility licensing activity. In the absence of license appli-cations for new conventional uranium mills, the regulatory fccus 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 vastes might include prescriptive features that NRC would consider appropriate to apply to mill tailings. i iner and corrective action technology for mining wastes can mature, and future rulemaking could draw on the experience resulting from site specific application of the general requirements already l
imposed. The difficult climate for consensus because of divergent views l
' and lack of data on risks and health effects related to hazardous consti-tuents may diminish as EPA develops and issues additional quantitative standards. Although the potential for deferred rulemaking would still exist under Alternative 2, it would reduce the near-term uncertainty.
Further, a comparison of the EPA's SWOA regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 , and existing NRC regulations indicates that the conformed.NRC. regulations j I would cover all the major regulatory principles in the SWDA rules. The i' differences between the conformed NRC regulations and the EPA SWDA stand-
- - ards would-primar.ily be in the level of datati and specifici.ty.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
.~v-- y .- , --. ,_., -- -m,,--, --,.-y-_--.,-., - - - . - . _ - - . , _ . - - - ., - ,-.-,--,--e,.,.-,.,,,,-,wm-,.. - -, . . ,-w ..v-.,-
r i t,... v.; 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 l 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. l 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
s - Lis90-01] e 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 i comparable solid wastes, including uranium mining wastes, are not considered hazardous under EPA's rules. M 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). The Commission also notes tnat 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" regulatifons 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 incorporata into its conformed rules I discretionary general requirements from the listed " relevant" regulations. l 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. l 20 _ _ u.__.________._____.____-.___-._.____._
. . 6's-w s-;
e VIff. CONTENT OF TH25 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 program.
- 2. Incorporate only,those imposed pr N sions where NRC has no legal discretion to deviate on a generic Dasis.
- 3. Provide maximum flexibility to implement the standards in guidance l and site specific licensing decisions.
i
- 4. Develop a NRC regulation that is self-contained without references to EPA's SWOA regulations.
- 5. Criange EPA's language and add implementation features only where necessary to make the incorporated standards understandable in the 21 t
I ( l
, o
[7590-Gu uranicm mill tailings context or to eliminate procedural aspects, guidance, explanations, and duplication.
- 6. Merge the thorium and uranium standards and generally consolidate requirements by topic in Appendix A.
- 7. Reflect the Commission's position that EPA site specific concurrences conflict with Commission authority and responsibilities.
Application of these' objectives and a careful reading of the EPA standards resulted in the proposed modifications of Appendix A to 10 CFR
- Part 40 in its Introduction, and in Criteria 5, 6, and 7, as well as the
. proposed addition of a new Criterion 13. These socifications 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 whien i were promulgated on July 26, 1982, are incorporated in modified text form l
into Appendix A. (Note that 40 CFR Part 192 incorporated SWOA rules as codifled 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 40 CFR 264.92 Ground-water protection standard. 40 CFR 264.93 Hazardous constituents. . 40 CFR 264.94 Concentration Ifmits. 40 CFR 264.100 Corrective action program. 2 Subpart G 40 CFR 264.111 Closure performance standard. . 22 L
*-s' -*
- I a +er- .e,
-~
Subpart K 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operating requirements for surface impoundments. EPA also indicated that the following specific sections should be addressed by NRC in implementing the standards. The Commission will address these sections of EPA's regulations in guidance documents and site specific licensing decisions as needed. Subpart F 40 CFR 264.91 Required programs. 40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance. 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period.
~
. 40 CFR 264.97 General ground-water monitoring requirements.
40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring program. 40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program. Subpart G 40 CFR 264.117~ Post-closure care and use of prop'rty. Subpart K 40 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and inspection. 40 CFR 264.228 tlosure 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 clarification of. terminology. .The proposed .
; addition to the Introduction defines new terms used in the proposed addi- .
,' tions to Criteria 5, 6, and 7. The definitions for aquifer, dike, existing portion, ground water, leachate, . licensed site, liner, surface impoundment,. 23
-[7590-01) and uppermost aquifer are essentially quoted from 40 CFR Part 192 and 40 CFR 264.10. Definitions in 40 CFR Part 192 for closure, closure plan, and disposal area were modified for clarity. Definitions for compliance period and point of compliance were developed from the intent ~of 40 CFR 264.95 and 264.96 coupled with the unique applicaton to licensing under l 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. l
- The EPA standards in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) and (2) establish primary and
, secondary ground-water protection standards for application during opera-tions and prior,to the end of closure. The primary standard is essentially a design standard for surface impoundments used to manage mili tailing's. l 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) requires design, construction, and installation of a i 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 also addressed. The specifics of the stan'dard are contained in referenced i 40 CFR 264.221(a)-(d). Paragraph (a) of $264.221 and 40 CFR 192.32(a) contain references to 40 CFR 264.228. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) states." ... except that at sites where the annual precipitation falling on the impoundment and any drainage. area. contributing surface runoff to the impoundment is less than the annual evaporation from the impoundment, the requirements of $264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E) referenced- INS 264.221 do not apply..." The Commission considers this 24
._.___ . _ _ _ _ _________.__~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _1_.
. . L7590-01]
reference to 5264.228 to be clarifying implementation guidance and not i binding regulations for impoundment design. The effect of the quoted text i 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 5264.228 in 5264.221 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 5A(1)-(5) of Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 correspond to 40 CFR 264.221(a)-(d) with appropriate procedural and administrative changes. A secondary ground-water protection standard is provided by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) to address leakage from impoundsents. As worded, the secondary standard is not limitad to leakage from impoundsents 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) l and (11) 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)(if) adds radioactivity limits I - to Table 1 of 40 CFR 264.94. 40 CFR 192.41(a)-(c) provide for equivalent - supplements for thorium when thorium byproduct materials are involved. j Paragraphs 5B(1)-(6) proposed as additions to criterion 5 of Appendix A to j 10 CFR Part 40 correspond to 40 CFR 264.92-264.94 Proposed paragraph SC ~ 25
[7590-01] to Criterion 5 contains Table 1 of 5254.94 with the supplemental radioactiv-
~
4 ity limits added. Preposed new Criterion 13 to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 lists the ha:ardous 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 and radium-228 and gross alpha activity (see 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(ii)) to Table 1 also meant that they should be treated as ha:- ardous constituents. Such treatment is procedurally required to apply the 1 limits. In drafting paragraphs 58(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 i -limits...providedthat,afterconsideringpracticablecorrectivecolrective actions, these limits are as low as reasonably achievable and... the standards of 5 264.94(a) are satisfied at all points at a greater distance than 500 l meters from the edge of the disposal area and/or outside the site boundary." The limits in 5192.32(a)(2)(iv) were not intended as mandatory in all cases. i l They define when the decision on an alternate concentration limit would i 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 l
l conditions ~can be misconstrued to apply to all alternate concentration limit cases, the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 40 do not include 26 l
- - - - - ~ - - - - , . - , , - - . , - - - . _ . - , _ - - - , - - - , - , , -
?
. .- tra:u uss 5192.32(a)(2)(iv) and (v). However, the Commission's as low as reasonably 4 achievable (ALARA) policy remains in effect for these decisions without the terms of 5192.32(a)(2)(iv). To emphasize its continued commitment to the policy, it is repeated in the proposed modifications. Performing practicable corrective hetions would be a normal part of applying the ALARA principle.
1 The Commission considers this issue a procedural one, rather than a matter of health and safety or environmental protection, because 40 CFR 264.93 and 264.94 are included in the proposed changes. These sections include the required finding of no significant present or potential hazard and the listed factors to be considered. The proposed modifications clearly and explicitly limit NRC to site-specific decisions. NRC and EPA staff
~
agreement on taplementing 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 ! sites. The Commission does not foresee the need to use the provision to delist detected hazardous constituents as provided in proposed paragraph 58(3) 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 l licensing needs. If this does not prove to be the case, similar development i ll of mutually acceptable guidance could be pursued. i! i The requirements for detection monitoring programs in i 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iii) are incorporated into the expanded monitoring i ! 27 j: !r
. _, - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _._.__.i__.-..__,
^
l
..... .., l l
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 considered as it is outlined in 40 CFR 264.100. The proposed paragraph 50 of 10 CFR Part 40 also in-ciudts 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 of'the corrective action program is included in the proposed modificatians 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 acticn was required. The proposed requirements are intended to provide.that any corrective action program will be completed by the owner / operator prior to license termination.and transfer of the site to a a government agency for long-term caro - 4
. 28
. .. . L/ovu-ulj The proposed additions to Criterion 5 of 10 CFR Part a0 are designated as paragraphs SA 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 t,o word change in SE(4). " Toxic substances" is changed to " hazardous constituents" for consistency.
~
Section 40 CFR 192.32(b) prescribes standards for application after the closure period to be used to design and develop closure plans. The 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 closurer performance standard in 40 CFR 264.111. ,
IX. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AMEN 0MENTS AND REGULATORY ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS A. Finding of No Sicnificant Environmental Impact . r 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 i significantly affecting the quality of the environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The significant Federal action was the promulgation by EPA of its regulations on September 30, 1983. 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 29
[7590-01] is to' clarify previously existing language in promulgated EPA standards and incorporate mandatory requirements into NRC's regulations. The action l 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, i
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 (J). Supplementary Information, Interim ; Final Rulemaking for 40 CFR Parts 122, 260, 264 and 265, " Hazardous Waste . Management System; Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; and EPA Administered Permit Programs," published July 26, 1982 (47 FR 32274). NRC also prepared -
. I 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 i
to the 40 CFR Part 192 Standards," NUREG/CR-4403.2 i 1 Single copies of the Final Environmental Impact and the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as available, may be obtained from the Program Management Office (ANR-458), Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, , Washington,'DC 20460; telephone number (703) 557-9351. A copy of each ! document is also available for inspection and/or copying in NRC's Public Occument Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Y4shington, DC 20555. r 30 I t
[7590-01] The Commission has prepared the following overview and update of the l impacts on the environment and uranium and thorium milling industry asso-ciated with the ground-water protection standards proposed for incorporation. Over 20 additional references were used in preparing the overview and update. 1 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 l addressed in a comprehensive Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if one was required by this action to meet the requirements of the Regulatory Flexi-
.bility Act. (As indicated in the discussion under " Regulatory Flexibility certification," a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.) The summary information is' not intended to be a strict cost / benefit analysis or a technical justification for the standards. It does, however, gener-ally relate economic cost to the benefit expected from compliance to the standard. The summary information should also help the reader more fully understand the nature and potential impacts of the proposed action.
Statement of the Problem - The earlier discussion outlined the i .
! legislative mandate for this rulemaking. ,
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 j Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or ., copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington,.DC 20555.
i 31
e . u -- w s; Obfectives -.The proposed changes are intended to conform NRC's 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 I EPA regulations was rejected in response to comments on the first step con-
- forming action published October 16, 1985. As emphasized in this earlier i
rulemaking, the Commission views its legal options to include approval of 1 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 Commission considers only site specific alternative standards to those proposed for incorporation to be within its discretion.
Thus a discussion of the costs and benefits of alternative standards is inappropriate. The following discussion is therefore limited to an overview
~ !< of the costs and benefits of the six major features of the EPA standards being incorporated. The features are (1) synthetic liners, (2) alternatives l
to synthetic liners, (3) ground-water monitoring, (4) alternate concentration
- 1. l h limits, (5) closure, and (6) corrective actions for ground-water O contaminatlon.
q is l i, 32
[7590-01] i
- 1. Synthetic Liners
! As provided in Criterion 5A(1), liners for tailings surface impouncments must be designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundments during the active life of the facility. As i
a practical matter,'this provision requires installation of synthetic ifners 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 3 polymeric membrane, plastic, or rubber liners.
; Synthetic liners are a state-of-the-art component of uranium tailings impoundments to minimize ground-water contamination caused by leakage from tailings impoundments. Synthetic liners that are properly . designed and installed are more effective than cather types of liners in a 1
preventing significant ground-water contamination from active tailings , impoundsents. 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 I i
site-s_pecific factors. 9 Since 1977, NRC has required ifcensees to construct new uranium tailings i impoundsents using either synthetic or engineered clay liners. The require - l- ment to install synthetic liners in new or existing tailings impoundments l' will significantly increase the cost of tailings disposal compared with i costs incJrred at uranium mills constructed before 1977. Accuracies of
^
l cost estimates for liners at future sites are inherently limited by site-specific factors that affect liner costs, including liner type and ( 33 i i t i
~ ~ ~
[7590-01) 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): and this updated analysis, insta11ation' of synthetic liners is expected to account for 1 to 2 percent of the value of uranium
- produced at a typical uranium mill. (See Table 1 at the end of this sec-tion.) The value of uranium was estimated by assuming that the mill oper-ates for 15 years, an annual yellowcake production of 580 metric tonnes (MT), and a fixed market price for yellowcake of $44,100 per NT (520 per pound 1985 dollars). [
The average size of existing uranium tailings impounaments or groups of impoundments in the United States is approximately 70 hectares (175 acres). Based on unit costs of synthetic liners installed at other waste disposal sites in the United States, the cost of synthetic liner installation in an , average-size impoundment would be expected to range from $4.2 to $10.4 million (1985 dollars). Unit costs for 1tners installed prior to 1985 were escalated to 1985 costs in proportion to increases in construction price indexes. Table 1 compares estimated costs for synthetic liner instal-lation with costs of other ground-water protection measures based on a sim-plified site model. These cost estimates may differ from actual costs based I on site specific factors including the actual size and number of impound- [ ments used. h
- 2. Alternatives to Synthetic Liners i As an alternative to synthetic liner installation, Criterion 5A(1) ,
provides licensees and applicants with flexibility to construct storage - ! impoundments for uranium tailings, provided that tailings constituents do not migrate into subsurface soils, geologic media, ground water, or surface 34
- -- y , - - - , - - , . - - - - - - + -
- . . ~ - - -
.--~--.--,----,,--,y-,
[759ts vu water during the active life of the facility. The licensee or applicant would be required during closure of the facility to remove or decontaminate all waste residues (e.g., tailings), contaminated impoundment components (e.g. , liners, embankments), contaminated soils and geologi'c 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 sedia, 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 impountments for f tailings storage appears even less Itkely considering additional costs for t the alternative including disposal site preparation costs; design, testing,
~
l and installation costs for liners; and costs for dewatering the tailings so they can be relocated to a disposal site. Criterion 5A(3) provides the applicant or licensee with an opportunity I for another exemption from the synthetic liner requirement if the applicant or licensee can demonstrate to the Commission that a combination of design,. i operation, and site characteristics prevents migration of hazardous constituents into ground water or surface water at ary future time. This demonstration should consider such . factors as the nature and. quantity of . wastes, alternata design features and operation pract. ices. -hydroge61ogic site characteristics, and other factors that could influence the 4Wity l 25 i A
[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 5A(3). Costs incurred in successfully demonstrating the exemption will vary based on the relative importance and type of site characteristics, design features, and operation practices. For example, a successful demonstration based primarily on site characteristics may only require additional collection of site characterization information to supplement information contained in environmental assessments and licensing evaluations pursuant
.to Criterion 5G(2). The incremental cost in this case would be limited to 1.he additional costs of collecting more-detailed hydrogeologic information (e.g., aquifer tests analyses, ground-water monitoring results, stratigraphic data). In contrast, a demonstration may be based primarily on appropriate operational practices such as drying the tailings with cyclones or belt filters. The cost of this alternative would be the capital costs of necessary equipment and structures, as well as the maintenance and 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 alternetives are expected to vary from less than to greater than the costs of synthetic liners as described in Table 1.
~
The potential benefits gained from the exemption are essentially equivalent to potential benefits associated with synthetic liner installation, namely protection of ground water and surface water quality. This benefit may be realized by humans living near uranium processing facilitter 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 soplication 36
[7590-01] of new control and operation technologies for environmental protection at l uranium processing facilities. Successful applications could benefit other programs for radiological and non-radiological waste management.
- 3. Ground water Monitorinc ,
l 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. l 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 il L " complianer with licensing conditions and preparation of environmental assessments. Ground-water monitoring costs may also be affected by site-specific decisions such as pursuing an axemption to the synthetic 37 1._____ L-_-.-___.____.__._____....--.______
. - = . .- - . . _-
. . . Liovu ui[
liner requirement, requesting alternate concentration limits, or selecting corrective actions for grounewater 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 comparisen 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 ;roposed amendments provide licensees with flexibility in developing site-specific ground-water protection standards that incorporate alternate concentration limits in lieu of background concentrstion lir.its or the limits listed in Criterion SC. The Commission may establish alternate i concentration limits provided that a hazardo'us constituent does not pose.a 1'
present or potential hazard to humans or the environment as long as its concentration does not exceed this alternate limit at the point of compliance.
~
The costs associated with applications for alternate concentration limits will vary based on site-specific factors that determine information needs for the demonstration. Information needed to support applications for alternate limits would draw heavily on information contained in environ-mental'repoets and license applications. Because detailed site information is an existing requiment (see Criterion SG), justifications. for alternate . , concentration limits should only need to be supplemented with information 38
~-
~
._ _: _ . . ~'
^
[7590-01] about adverse effects of hazardous constituents on humans and the environment based on reputable literature. The cost of assembling this information is expectrd to be minimal compared with costs for other ground-water protection actions such as liner and cover installation or ground-water monitoring. Costs for ar.sessing practicable corrective actions and cther 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 mobili:ation of waste components. The arid western environmental characteristics of most processing sites in combination with effective earthen covers for radon . I control and erosion protection should generally be sufficiant to minimize long-term infiltration into stabilized impoundments. However, some' tailings disposal impoundments in humid climates with synthetic liners say require more complicated cover designs and installations to prevent detrimental accumulation of. water in the stabilized impoundment af.ter . closure.(f.e. , bathtub effect). For example, a site in a humid climate may require a composite cover to meet both the radiological and nonradiological objectives. The composite cover night include compacted silt to control radon aiffusion and a bituminous concrete surface seal to minimize .tnflitration and mobiliza- . tion of nonradiological constituents. l 39
- _ - _ L_ __ z _ __ _ _ _ . - - _ . -- .
Lis:v wa; 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 j 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.
*~
S. 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 l Corrective action may involve eliminating the source of ground-water contamination by either relocating the tailings to a suitable disposal site or treating them in place to limit
~
the mobility and release of hazardous constituents. In addition, the cor-rective action program may also involve treating ground water between the point of compliance and the site boundary. Licensees have been operating programs to mitigate ground-water contamination at uranium mills for several years. The corrective action programs required in today's amendrents may substantially increase the costs associated with ground-water protection at uranium processing 40
~
[7590-01] facilities by requiring expansion of existing mitigation pregrams or development of new corrective action programs. Accuracies of cost estimates for corrective action programs are inherently limited by site-specific factors such as the extent and type of contamination., volume of tailings, hydraulic and geochemical properties of the hydrogeologic system, impoundment design, and other factors that affect the technical feasibility, practicality, timing, and extent of corrective actions for ground-water contamination. , Table 1 compares relative costs of ground-water protection actions, including components of corrective action programs such as slurry trench installation, grouting, drain and well installation and operation, relocation of tailings, and aquifer restoration. (Note that the listed actions include measures that have not been successfully demonstrated at existing NRC licensed tailings sites but they represent possible options.) The costs .of component actions would be summed to develop cost estimates of integrated corrective action programs. An example of an integrated corrective action program might include installation of a bentonite slurry wal.1 upgradier*c of a contaminated ground-water plume, installation and operation of injection and withdrawal wells for aquifer restoration, and construction and operation of a water treatment facility to improve the quality of water removed from the contaminated aquifer. The corrective action program might also include 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 monitering-and evaluation of monitoring data to evaluata ths.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 , l
[1h0-01] TABLE 1. COST COMPARISON FOR GROUNO-WATER PROTECTION ACTIONS AT A MODEL CONVENTIONAL MILL" Cost Range Percentage of Tyoe 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 Bituminou's Concrete Cover 1.3 to 1.7 0.3 to 0.4 Ground-water Orains 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 - l l
- l Assumes the following site model: 70 hectare (175 acres) tailings impound-ment in which tailings have been deposited to a thickness of 9 meters; con-taminated ground-water plume extends from the upgradient side of impoundment to 500 meters laterally downgradient of the downgradient edge of the impound-ment; unidirectional ground-water flow field; aquifer is 15 meters thick, composed of silty sand, and has a porosity of 20%; uranium mill produces ~
yellowcake for 15 years with an annual production rate of 580 MT at a fixed market price of Sa4100 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 conside E Ty 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. l 42 .
i . [7590-01] I the value of yellowcake produced depending on the type and extent of correc-tive actions. C. Imoacts on Other Recuirements and Persons NRC and Licensee Staffino - The major impacts of the selected alternative on NRC programs is the resource savings of the reduced rule-making scope and the reduced need to develop or modify existing guidance documents. Because the EPA standards are already imposed, the rulemaking itself has no direct effect on licensing actions. Licensees will probably have to increase staff and/or use consultants to some degree to comply with
.the ground-water protection standards in interim and final reclamation pro-grams. The depressed state of the industry has resulted in significant licensee staff reductions and uncertainties. Thus, it is difficult to assess the impact of the rulemaking itself on the_ licensees' fluid staffing situation.
Acreement 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 silling 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 ragulatory program for uranium milling. < Memorandum of Understandino-(MOU) With EPA - Negotiations on a MOU l with EPA were initiated soon after the EPA standards were issued in October 1 of 1983 to facilitate NRC implementation of the standards, to reduce inconsistencies, and to clarify responsibilities. -Several draft MOU's r 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
*
- 3. x. J.j issue that is left to be addressed is how NRC will establish alternate concentration limits and to what extent EPA will be involved in those deci-siens. Work on the MOU was deferred by mutual consent in late 1984 pending f
development of a generic methodology by NRC and EPA staff for evaluating alternate concentration limits. At this writing, the effort to develop a generic methodology is still underway. When the methodology is completed, NRC and EPA may use an MOU to establish procedures.for its application. It is also possible that after NRC's uranium mill tailings regulations are issued, other agreements with EPA might be necessary requiring the develop-ment of an MOU with a different focus than has been discussed in the past. Constraints - Unless. court action sets the EPA standards aside, NRC is obligated to conform its rules and implement and enforce the EPA stand-ards. A United States Court of Appeals has upheld the EPA standards proposed for inclusion in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. See, American Minino Congress i
- 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." l D. Implementation
~
The four Agreement States regulating uranium mill operations have
~
some form of operational criteria and objectives which are intended to provide ground-water protection. There are.differencas between .40 CFR Part 192 and the State programs for ground-water. protection, particularly in the areas of point of compliance seasurements, 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
Colorado and pumpback systems by mills in New Mexico. Additionally four mills (2.in Colorado and 2 in New Mexico) have been added to the Superfund National Priority Listing as a back up for achieving compliance with 40 CFR Part.192 and 10 CFR Part 40. Some form of ground water monitoring is under way by the mills in the Agreement States. When the NRC
' issues its final regulation on this topic, we expect the States to refine their requirements to be equivalent to the,NRC regulation to the extent practicable, or more stringent. In general, the States are attempting to meet the intent'of 40 CFR' Fart.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 monitcring. Between April 22 and May 7, 1985, NRC issued amendments to its milling lic'ensees not in the process of decommissioning. Subsequent to the issuance of the site-specific license amendEnts,11ofthe13licenseesrequestedhearings. 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 Defoose. Fund...The..
requests for hearings are being processed in accordance with usual agency 45
--._y g._. _ _ , _ . _ , _ - . _ , _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ . _ . __,_,,______,_y __ - _ .
procedures. NRC has also taken enforcement action for violation of.tne liner requirement in the standard. The depressed state of the industry has minimized the need to implement certain aspects of the ground water protection standards. For example, licensees do not need new impoundments when they are not operating. NRC will continue to implement and enforce l 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
^
- c. to intercept and return contaminated ground water to the impoundment's. ,
Enhanced water evaporation systems are also used af. 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. l ! 46 1 l l _.lf,___ _~_i_____...__________. T_E . _ _ ._ _ .. ~1: ~1
l 4 e [75a0 Ora There are several NRC Regulatory Guides that will be impacted by the proposed rulemaking. Draft Regulatory Guide MS-146-43 and 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 . Pubite Document Room,1717 H Street NW. , Washington, DC. Requests for single copies of draft guides or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific-divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention, Director, Division of Technical 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 23555; telephone (301) 427-4312.
sRegulatory Guides are available for inspection at the Commission's Pubife Document Room,1717 H Street NW. , Washington, DC Copies of active guides may be purchased at the current Government Printing Office
, price. A subscription service for future guides in specific divisions 4
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, ' i P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. L 1
i 6 47 .
e a- Leosu-uAj 1 E. Relationshio to Other Existing or Proposed NRC Raouirements 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,
, SWDA Comoarable Chances - 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 l elements of the SWDA regulations when the present action is completed.
The Commission does not consider detailed regulations necessary to accom-pitsh the AEA mandate. The Cosasission will continJe to monitor DOE and industry assessments of the s+. ate of the industry, evolution of the tech-nclogies associated with the SWDA regulations, NRC and State licensing exper,ience, 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 accommodate 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 Commission rulemaking any sooner. -
Petition for Rulemakino - On November 30, 1982, the Nuclest Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (47 FR 53889) 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 tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the ground.watar,.the earth 48
trasu-Ulj f ~, cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on the mill operator to cover the costs of long. tem surveillance. The petitioner believes that its suggested changes would significantly reduce compliance costs' incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities and would continue to adequately protect the public health, safety and the environment. The NRC is required by the NRC Authorization Act of 1983 to confom its urariium mill tailings regulations to the final standards issued by the EPA for uranium and thorium mill tailings. The NRC has chosen to meet this mandate in two rulemaking proceedings that set out
- amendments to Appendix A to'10 CFR Part 40. The final rule published October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852), completed the first rulemaking action.
That final rule revised Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in order to confom 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 grouna-water protection requiraments 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 confom NRC regulations to EPA standards.
i The amendments suggested by the petitioner for Criterion 5 concern e; 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 L potable use in determining potentially deleterious impacts of tailings 49
. o
[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 confom 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 tnereafter without active maintenance..."
rather than for " thousands of years" as originally 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 i. hat , a 2% annual real interest rate rather than the current 1% annual real interest rate on collected funds be imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance. The petitioner believes that
~
the 2% annual real interest rate is a more accurate percentage spread between inflation and interest rates. This issue is beyond the scope of the rulemaking actions necessary to conform NRC regulations to EPA standards and has not been addressed in either the October 16, 1985 final rule or in this proposed rule. 50
. _ _ _ . - _ . . 2 . -. _ . 11 _ . 'T n _
[7590-01] When the NRC publishes its final rule on ground-water protection, 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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501' p m. ). Existing NRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 40 were approved by the Offics of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0020. This rule has been submitted to the Office oY Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements. i XI. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION l As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, - i 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
. prepaNd. 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 saa11 entity definition of less than 3.5 million dollars in annual receipts. However, under the Regulatory 51 9
' 5-
[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 - DCMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL l
- 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), 83r 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 . 1
' 5
, (7590-01]
amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 58a6). Sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L. 97-a15, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022). Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). , For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); 55 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),
~0.26(c)(2),
4 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.'2201(c)). Appendix A to Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
. Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills ind the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the
- Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Scurce Material Content.
l 2. Introduction to Appendix A is amended by adding the following l text at the end 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 fonnation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells or springs.
53
-- . , , . . , y . - . _ . - - . __,4, ,%, p ,,.,--y-,_g y , sp, 9 w_ . _ , _ - - - - . -.w y , --, y , w.
8 5, [1590-01]
" Closure" means the activities following operations to 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 ifcense 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 byprod'uct 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 materiais had been placed prior to September 30, 1983.
" Ground water" means water below the land surface in a zone of saturation.
"Leachata" means any liquid, including any suspended or dissolved i
components in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from the byproduct material. -
" Licensed site" means the area contained within the boundary of a location under the control of persons generating or storing byproduct materials under a Commission Itcense.
" Liner" means a continuous layer of natural or man-made materials, beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment which restricts the downward or lateral escape of byproduct material, hazardous constituents,-
or 1eachate. 54
, - , . - , . . _ _ _ - - ,, - ,,. .,- ._, c . . . - . , _ , ,_ .-- _ - , - - . _ . - - . . __ _-_ _ _ . - - - .- -
[7MO-0Q
" Point of compliance" is the site specific location in the uppermost aquifer wnere 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 injection well.
" Uppermost aquifer" means the geologic formation nearest the natural ground surface that is an aquifer, as well as lower aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected with this aquifer within the facility's property boundary.
- 3. Criterion 'S is revised to read as follows:
Criterion 5 - Criteria 5A-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 pr'ior to the and 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 stlndard 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 impounament Jhe liner.may be can- , 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 55
- l p
4 e >
Lessu-01] containment system components (liners, etc.), contaminated subseils, and structures and equipment contaminated.with waste and leachate. For impounc-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. 5A(2)--The liner required by paragraph SA(1) above must be-- (a) Constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients (including static head and external hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic condi-
.tions, the stress of installation, and the stress of daily operation; (b) Placed upon a foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure grndients 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. . 5A(3)--The applicant or licensed wil1 be exempted from the require-ments of paragraph 5A(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 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 alternata design and operation; a 4 56 4
s s . L7bS0-01] (c) The hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the attenuative capacity and thickness of the liners and soils present between the imocunement 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 migrate to ground water or surface water. SA(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; r.un-on; malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment;
.and human error.
SA(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 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-form to the following secondary ground-water protection standard: Haza,rdous 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 5B(2) of this criterion. Specified -concentration limits are .those limits .estac- - lished by the Commission as indicated in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion. . The Commission will also establish the point of compliance and compliance 4 period on a site specific basis through license conditions and orders.
. 57 p - , -,-- , _ . - _ -
lissu 91; The objective in selecting the point of concliance is to provide the ear-liest practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous constituents to the ground water. The point of compliance must ce selected to prov.ide prompt indication of ground-water contamination on the hycrau-lically downgradient edge of the disposal area. The Cossetssion 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.
. SB(2)--A constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to para-graph 5B(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;
- i .
~*
and , (c) Is listed in Criter' ion 13 of this appendix. SB(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: l (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 sigration; .
(ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and sur-rounding knd; p l 58
, _ _ _ - - - - --n--- , ,-,.,,,_,,,y - - -_,_ , _ , . . , - , . - - , , _ , - , - , , , - . , , , , , , , , - , , - _ _ , , _ _ - , _ _ , , - - - , _
Le:su-uta l (iii) The quantity of ground water and the direction of grounc water 4 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 pctential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; t (viii) The potential damage to wild-life, crops, vegetation, and
. physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents;
- (1x) The persister.ca 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; (11). The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and sur- , rounding land; (ili) 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 wasta constituents; 59 v 9 g-- g--ww--+ ww- w- -. y ,w,y w v-- v- , weyw _
[7b90-01] ' (ix) 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. SB(4)--In making any determinations under paragraphs 5B(3) and SS(S) of this criterion about the use of ground water in the area around the facility, the Commission will consider any identification of underground sources of drinking water and exempted aquifers made by the Environmental Protection Agency. 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 ff the
; constituant is listed in the tabi,e and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit established by the Commission.
58(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 suistantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded. In estabitshing alter-nate concentration limits, the Commisefon 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 l
._. - ~ : L . . .-._.____-_.___..._----_-:_r.
[7590 vi; 1 (a) Potential adverse effects on ground water quality, considering -- (1) 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) The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-water flow; (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users; (v) The current and future uses of ground water in the area; (vi) The existing quality of ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on the ground-water quality; (vii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; (viii) The potential damage to wildiffe, 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 hyd.raulically-connected surface watar 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 surrounding land; - , (iii) The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direc-tion of ground-water flow; (iv) The patterns of rainfall'in the region; (v) The proximity of the Itcensed site to surface waters; O 61
[7590-01] (vi)_ The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those surface waters; (vii) The existing quality of surface water including other sources of contamination and the cumulative impact on surface water quality; (viii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; (ix) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; and (x) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse e,f f ects.
- SC--MAXIMUM VALUES FOR GROUND-WATER PROTECTION:
Maximum Constituent or Property Concentration Milligrams per liter
~
- Arsenic................................................ 0.05 Barium...............l................................. 1. 0 Cadmium................................................ 0.01 Chromium............................................... 0.05 Lead................................................... 0.05 Me rcu ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002 Selenium............................................... 0.01 '
i Si1ver................................................. 0.05 ! Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,7 -expoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,9a-octahydro-1, 4-endo, endo-5,8-dimethano naphthalene)............................ 0.0002 Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma isoeer)........................................ 0.004 Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis (p-methox-ypheny1sthane)....................................... 0.1 Toxaphone (CsoHgoCle, Technical chlorinated cam- -. .- l? phone, 67-69 percent chlorine)....................... 0.005 l: 2,4-D (2,4-01chlorophenoxyacetic acid)................. 0.1 2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypro-
. pionic ac1d)......................................... 0.01 ll Picoeuries per liter l;
Combined radium - 226 and radium -228.................. 5 Gross alpha particle activity (excluding l- radon and uranium when producing uranium byproduct material or thorium when producing thorium byproduct materiel)............................................ 15 62 L l l t
O e [7590-01] 50--If the ground water protection standards establishec under < paragraph 5B(1) of this criterion are exceeded at a licensed site, a cor-rective action program must be put into operation as soon as is practicable, and in no event later than eighteen (18) months after the Commission finds that the standards have been exceeded. The licensee shall submit the proposed corrective action program and supporting rationale for Commission approval prior to putting the program into 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 program must address removing the hazardous constituents that have entered the ground water at the point of compliance or treating them in place. The program must also address removing or treating in place any hazardous constituents that exceed concentration limits in ground water between the point of compliance and tne downgradient facility property boundary. The licensee shall continue corrective action measures to the extent necessary to achieve and ma.3tain compliance with the ground-water protection standard. The Ccamission will determine when the licensee may terminate corrective action measures based on data from the ground-water monitoring program and other information that provide reasonable assurance that the ground-water protection standard will not be exceeded. SE--In developing and conducting ground-water protection programs, 'i applicants and licensees shall also consider.the following-(1) Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic liners 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
L iovu-ulj Where clay liners are proposed or relatively thin, in-situ clay soils are to be relied upon for seepage control, tests must be conducted with repre-sentative tailings solutions and clay materials to confirm that no signifi-crat deterioration of permeability or stability properties will occur with continuous expcsure of clay to tailings solutions. Tests must be run for a sufficient perico of time to reveal any effects if they are going to occur (in come cases deterioration has been observed to occur rather rap-
- idly after about nine sonths of exposure)).
(2) Mill process designs which provide the maximum practicable re-cycle of solutions and conservation of water to reduce the net input of liquid to the tailings impoundment. (3) Dewatering of tailings by process devices and/or in-situ drain-age systems (At new sites, tailings must be dewatered by a draf nage system installed at the bottom of the impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head of seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a systam. Where in-situ dewaterirg is to be conducted, the impoundment bottoa must be graded to assure that the drains are at a l low point. The drains must be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system must also be l adequately sized to assure good drainage). (4) Neutralization to promote immobilization of hazardous constituents. 5F--Where ground-water impacts are occurring at an existing site due to seepage, action must be taken to alleviate condi-tions that lead to . . . excessive seepage impacts and restore ground-water quality. The specific l l seepage control and ground-water protection method, or combination of l ! methods, to be used must be worked out on a site-specific basis. . Technical l
- specifications must be prepared to control installation of seepage control l
64 + l i
, [7590-01]
i . 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 infomation concerning extent, thick-ness, unifomity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata. Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of the various formations must be detamined.
This internation 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 i boreholes must include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient l
l number and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant dis-l l continuities, 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 adaquataly. under . .. stood. Testing must be conduc+.ed to allow estimating chemi-sorption I 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 :
.y__ .-m. ., y __,, . , . , _ , - _ . . _ _ . _ , _ . .p . , _, , , , .,., - .. - _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . - *. - - _ _ _
[7590-01] 5,H--Steps must be taken during stockpiling of ore to minimize pene-tration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of ore storage areas.
- 4. Criterion 6 i: amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of Criterion 6:
Criterion 6 *** The licensee must also address the nonradiological hazards asso-ciated with the wastes in planning and implementing closure. The licensee s, hall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a manner that minimizes the
;need for further maintenance. To the extent necessary to prevent threats to human hea'lth and the environment, 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. Criterion 7 is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of Criterion 7:
Criterien 7 *** . 7A--The licensee shall establish a detection monitoring program ne'eded to establish the ground-water protection standards in paragraph 5B(1) of this appendix. A detection monitoring program has two purposes. The ini-l 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 generata data and information needed for the Commission to establish the standards under Criterion 58. The data and information must 66
_. - ._:~ ' - . . _ . -.-__.___.-:_. - _ _ = _
Lessu v4; provide a sufficient basis to identify those hazardous constituents which require concentration limit standards and to enable the Commissionoto 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 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 Commissien in orders or license conditions. Once ground-water protection standards have been established pursuant to paragraph 5B(1), the licensee shall astablish and implement a compliance monitoring program. The purpose af 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
- c. a corrective action penitoring program. The purpose of the corrective action
~
monitoring program is to demonstrate the c;fectiveness 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:
I _ 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 coostituents identifies . . 67 P
~
o , [7590-01] 1 1 the constituents for which standards must be set and complied with if the 1 i specific constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the 1 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, wnen setting standards under paragraph 5B(5) of Criterion 5, the Commission will also set a limit for 'I gross alpha activity. i ( Hazardous Constituents Acetonitrile (Ethanenitrile) Acetophenone (Ethanone,1 phenyl) 3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxyc:umarin and salts (Warfarin) 2-Acetylaminofluorene (Acetamide, N-(9H-fluoren-2 yl)-) Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride)
~
1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (Acetamide, N-(aminothioxo' m ethyl)-) Acrolein (2-Propenal) Acrylamide (2-Propenamide) Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile) . Aflatoxins Aldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,84,8b-hexahydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Oisethanonaphthalene) Allyl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol) Aluminum phosphide 4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,1'-Bipheny1]-4-amine) 68
.---,.--.,c- -- - ,- , . , - , , . -
- - ~ , , - , - , - , ,
. . [7590-01]
6-Amino-1,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxymethyl)-Sa-methoxy-5-methyl-carbamate azirino[2',3':3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a] indole-4,7-dione,
~
(ester) (Mitomycin C) (Azirino[2'3':3,4]pyrrolo(1,2-a) indole-4,7-dione, 6-amino-8-[((amino-cabonyl) oxy)methy1]-1,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexa-hydro-Sa methoxy-5-methy-) 5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol (3(2H)-Isoxazolone, 5-(aminomethyl)-) 4-Aminopyridine (4-Pyridinamine) Amitrole (1H-1,2,4-Triazol-3-amine) Aniline (Benzenamina)
' Antimony and compounds, N.O.'S.*
Aramite (Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl , 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)
. phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester)
Arsenic and compounds, N.O.S.* Arsenic acid (Orthoarsenic acid) Arsenic pentoxide (Arsenic (V) oxide) Arsenic trioxide (Arsenic (III) oxide) Auramine (Benzenamine. 4,4'-carbonimidoylbis[N,N-Oimethyl , nonchydro-chloride) . Azaserine (L-Serine, diazoacetate (ester)) Barium and compounds, N.O.S.* Barium cyanide l Benz [c'] acridine (3,4-Benzacridine) Benz [a] anthracene (1.2-Benzanthracene) . Benzene (Cyclohexatriene) l l' Benzenearsonic acid (Arsonic acid, phenyl-)
"The amoreviation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members of the general class not specifically listed by name in this list.
69 i . .. .
s.~. .y 'a Benzene, dich_loromethyl- (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) Benzotrichloride (Benzene, trichloromethyl) - Benzyl chloride (Benzene, (chloromethyl)-) Beryllium and compounds,N.O.S.*
, Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane (Ethane,1,l'-[methylenobis(oxy)] bis [2-chloro-3)
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (Ethane, 1,l'-oxybis[2-chloro-]) N,N-Bis.(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine (Chlornaphazine) Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether (Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[2-chloro-]) Bis (chloromethyl) ether (Methane, oxybis[ chloro-]) Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis (2-ethyl-hexyl) ester) . Bromoacetone (2. Propanone, 1-bromo-) Bronomethane (Methyl bromide) 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether (Benzene,1-bromo-4 phenoxy-) Brucine (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
v s:ruw.; Cadmium and compounds, N.O.S.* l Calcium chromate (Chromic acio, calcium salt) Calcium cyanide Carbon,disulfide (Carbon bisulfide) Carbon oxyfluoride (Carbonyl fluoride) Chloral (Acetaldehyde, trichloro-) Chlormbucil (Butanoic acid, 4-[ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino] benzene-) Chlordane (alpha and gamma isoners) (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.* l Chlorinated fluorocarbons, N.O.S* Chlorinated naphthalene, N.0.5.* Chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.* Chlotoacetaldehyde (Acetaldehyde, chloro-) .. Chlorealkyl ethers, N.O.S." o-Chloroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-chloro-) Chlorobenzene (Benzene, chloro-) Chlorobenzilate (Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)- alpha-hydroxy , ethyl ester) j' p-Chloro-a-crosol (Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl)
~
1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane (0xtrane, 2-(chloromethyl)-) 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene, (2-chlocoethoxy)-) Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-) Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
! Chloromethyl methyl other (Methane, chloromethoxy-)
2-Chloronaphthalene (Naphthalene, betachloro.) 71
. _ : '_ _ : _ _ . _ . ~~__._.__- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ __ . .
' ~ ^^' '
L,;su uta 2-Chlorophenol (Phenol, o-chloro-) l l 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) Cyanagen bromide (Bromine cyanide) Cyanogen chloride (Chlorine cyanide) . Cycasin (beta-0-Glucopyraneside, (methyl-ONN-azoxy) methyl-) 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-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- tri deoxy )- al pha- L-lyxo- hexopyrano sy l ) oxy ]-7 , 8 ,9 ,10- tatrahyd ro-6,8,11-trihydroxy-1-methoxy-) 000 (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) (Ethane,1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-) 00E (Ethylene,1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (4-chlorophenyl)-) 00T (Of chlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) (Ethane,1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis 1 (p-chlorophenyl)-)
< 72 1
-,--,,-e-.- w---- - - , - - - ---,-na - - - - , ,,e- ,,-mn a m-e, wn,---n ~- -- -- - , - ,-, - - , - - - - m, - - , - - - ,w-.mn w~-e--,,--w--------- ,
L/dyu-ulj Dia11 ate (S-(2,3-dichloroa11yl) diisopropylthiocarcamate) Dibenz[a,h] acridine (1,2,5,6-Dibenzacridine) Dibenz[a,j] acridine (1,2,7,8-Dibenzacridine) Dibenz[a,h] anthracene (1,2,5,6-Oibenzanthracene) 7H-Dibenzo[c g] carbazole (3,4,5,6-Oibenzcarbazole) Ofbanzo[a,e] pyrene (1,2,4,5-Dibenzpyrene) Dibenzo[a.h] pyrene (1,2,5,6-Dibenzpyrene) Dibenzo[a,i] pyrene (1,2,7,8-Oibenzpyrene) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-) 1,2-Dibramoothane (Ethylene dibromide) Oibronomethane (Methylene bromide) Di-n-butyi phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester)
- o-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene,1,2-dichloro-)
m-01 chlorobenzene (Benzene,1,3-dichloro-) 5 p-Oichlorobenzene (Benzene,1,4-dichloro-) Dichlorobenzen'e, N.O.S.* (Benzene, dichloro , N.O.S.") 3,3'-01chlorobenzidine ([1,l'-Bipheny13-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro-) 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (2-Butene,1,4-dichloro-) 01chlorodifluoromethane (Methane, dichlorodifluoro-) ~
- 1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) 1,2-01chloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) trans-1,2-Ofchloroethene (1,2-01chloroethylene)
Of chloroethylene, N.O.S.* (Ethene, dichloro , N.O.S.*) 1,1-Oichloroethylene (Ethene,1,1-dichloro-) a Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2,4-01 chlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-) 2,6-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-)
. 73
~
' ~ ~ '~~
. , l
[' [7590-01) j .; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-0), salts and esters (Acetic acid, l -i j 2,4-dichlorophenoxy , salts and esters)
?
Dichlorophenylarsine (Phenyl dichlorcarsine) Dichloropropane, N.O.S." (Propane, dichloro , N.O.S.*) 1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride) Dichloropropanol, N.O.S.* (Propanol, dichloro , N.O.S.*)
-; Dichloropropene, N.O.S.* (Propene, dienloro , N.O.S.*)
I 1,3-Dichloropropene (1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-) Dieldin (1,2,3,4,10.10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy- ,
. 1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octa-hydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene) 1,2:3.4-Diepoxybutane (2,2'-Bioxirane)
Diethylarsine (Arsine, diethyl-) N,N-Diethy1hydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diethyl) 0,0-Diethyl S-methyl ester of phosphorodithioic acid (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 5-methyl ester) 0,0-Diethylphosphoric acid, 0 p-nitrophenyl ester (Phosphoric acid, diethyl p-nitrophenyl ester) Diethyl phthalate (1,2-8enzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) 0,0-Diethyn 0-2 pyrazinyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0 pyrazinyl ester) Diethylstilbesterol (4,4'-Stilbenediol, alpha, alpha-diethyl, bis (dihydrogen phosphate, (E)-) Dihydrosafrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4 propyl-) 3,4-Dihydroxy-alpha-(methylamino) methyl benzyl alcohol (1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1- hydro xy-2-(me thyl ami no) e thy 13-) , t 74 l l l i g
o , C7590-01] Dilsepropylfluorophosphate (DFP) (Phosphorofluoridic acid, bis (1-methylethyl) ester) Dimethoate (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 5-[2-(methylamino) oxcethy1] ester) 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1,l'-Bipheny1]- 4,4'-diamine, 3-3'-dimethoxy-) p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-) 7.12-Dimethylbenz[a] anthracene (1,2-Senzanthracene, 7,12-dimethyl-) 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethyl-) Dimethylearbamoyl' chloride (Carbamoyl chloride, dimethyl-) 1,1-Oimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl-) 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl-)
. ~3,3-01 methyl-1-(methylthio)-2-butanone, 0-[(methylamino) carbony1]
oxime (Thiofanox) alpha, alpha-Gimethylphenethylamine (Ethanamine,1,1-dimethyl-2 pnenyl-) 2,4-Dimethylphenol (Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-) Dimethyl phthalate (1,2-Senzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester) Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester) Dinitrobenzene, N.0.5.* (Benzene, dinitro , N.0.5.*) 4,6-Dinitro-o-crosol and salts (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-methyl , and salts) 2,4-Dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro-) 2,6-Oinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,6-dinitro-) Di-n-octyl phthalate (1,2-8enzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester) 1,4-Otoxane (1,4-Olethylene oxide) Otphenylamine (Benzenamine, N phenyl-) 1,2-Dipheny1hydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-) 01-n propylnitrosamine (N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine) . 75
[7590-01) Disulfoton (0,0-diethyl 5-(2-(ethylthio)ethy1] phosphorodithicate) 2,4-Oithiobiuret (Thicimidodicarbonic 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.cardamate (Urethan) (Carbamic acid, ethyl ester) Ethyl cyanide (propanenitrile) Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters (1,2-Ethanedlyl-biscartamodithioic acid, salts and esters) Ethyleneimine (Aziridine) Ethylene oxide (Oxirane) Ethylenethiourea (2-Imidazolidinethione). Ethyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl , ethyl ester)
; Ethyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester)
Flucranthene (Benzo (j,k] fluorene) Fluorine 2-Fluoroacetamide (Acetamide, 2-fluoro-) Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt (Acetic acid, fluoro , sodium salt) Formaldehyde (Methylene oxide)
, Formic acid (Metnanoic acid)
Glycidy1 aldehyde (1-Propanol-2,3-epoxy) li ll Halomethane, N.0.5.* D Heptachlor (4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5 ,6 ,7,8,8- hep tachl o ro- 3a ,4 ,7,7a-L tetrahydro-) l l l 76 l l. i _ _ - - _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . - _.. , _ _,-._,.,_ _ ____ _r._.-.__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
[75C0-01] Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers) (4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,5,7,8,8-heptachloro-2,3-epcxy-3a,4,7,7-tetrahydro , alpha, beta, and gamma isomers) Hexachlorobenzene (Berizene, 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,5,8,84-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-) Hexasthyl 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) Iodomethans (Methyl iodide) Iron dextran (Ferric dextran) Isocyanic acid,. methyl ester (Methyl isocyanata) - Isobutyl alcohol (1-Propanol, 2-sethyl-) Isosafrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-ally 1-) Kepone (Decachlorcoctahydro 1,3,4-Nethano-2H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one) 77 s .- . y
[7590-01] Lasiocarpine (2-Butenoic acid, 2-methyl , 7-[(2,3-dihydroxy ' (1-methoxyethyl)-3-methyl-1-oxobutoxy)methy1]-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) i Lead subacetate (Lead, bis (acetato-0)tetrahydroxytri-) Maleic anhydride (2,5-Furandione) Maleic hydrazide (1,2-Dihydro-3,6 ;,yridazinedione)
. Malononitrile (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-) Methanethtol (Thiomethanol) Mgthapyrilene (Pyridine, 2-[(2-dimethylamino)ethy13-2-thenylamino-) Metholeyl (Acetimidic acid, N-[(methylcarbamoyl) oxy] thio , methyl ester) Methoxychlor (Ethane,1,1,1-trichloro-2,2'-bis (p-methoxyphenyl)-) - l 2-Methylaziridine (1,2-Propylenimine) l 3-Methylcholanthrone (Benz [j]aceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-) 1- Methyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonochloridic acid, methyl ester) 4,4'-Methylenobis(2-chloroan111ne) (Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenobis-(2-chloro-) riethyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (2-Butanone)
. . Methyl hydrazine (Hydrazine, methyl-)
2-Methy11actonitrile (Propanonitrile, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-)~ Methyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl , methyl ester)
. 78 l
o * [7590-01] Methyl methanesulfonate. (Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester) 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde-o-(methylcartonyl) exime (Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio) , 0-((methylamino)carbonyl) oxime) N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (Guanidine, N-nitroso-N-methyl,-N'- nitro-) Hethyl parathion (0,0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenyl) phosphorothioate) Methylthf ouracil (4-1H-Pyrimidinone, 2,3-dihydro-6-methyl-2-thicxo-) 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.0.5.*
Nickel carbonyl (Nickel tetracarbonyl) Nickel cyanide (Nickel (II) cyanide) i Nicotine and salts (Pyridine, (5)-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 .... . . M-(2-chloroethyl) N-methyl , and hydrochloride salt)
- Nitrogen mustard N-Oxide and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro ,
N-(2-chloroethyl)-N-methyl , and hydrochloride salt) Nitroglycerine (1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate) . 79
( [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-) I N-Nitrosodiethylamine (Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitrose-) 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 (Carbasic acid, methylnitroso , ethyl ester)
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Ethenamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine, N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosonornicotine (Nornicotine, N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosopiperidine (Pyridine, hexahydro , N-nitroso-) Nitrosopyrrolidine (Pyrrole, tetrahydro , N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosasarcosine (Sarcosine, N-nitroso-)
- 5-Nitro-o-toluidine (Benzenamine, 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-) l :' I h Parathion (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(p-nitrophenyl) ester) . p 1 Pentachlorobenzene (Benzene, pentachloro-)
- l Pentachloroethane (Ethane, pentachloro-)
(! Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)- (Benzene, pentachloronitro-) - Pentachloropnenol (Phenol, pentachloro-) 80
- _ - - , - , _ _ . - - - - -,---v-, ._ _m. .___. __, , - , - - _ - - - . - - - . _ - . _ _ _ , - . _ _ - , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
o , [7590-01]
.- i l
Phenacetin (Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-) j Phenol (Benzene, hydroxy-) Phenylenediamine (Benzenediamine) Phenylmercury acetate (Mercury, acetatophenyl-) N-Phenylthiourea (Thiourea, phenyl-) Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride) Phosphine (Hydrogen phosphide) Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 5-[(ethylthio) methyl] ester (Phorate) Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-[p-((dimethylamino) sulfonyl)phenyl] ester (Famphur)
~
- Phthalic acid esters, N.0.5.* (Benzene, 1,2-dicarboxylic acid, esters,
~
N.0.5.") Phthalic anhydride (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride) 2-Picoline (Pyridine, 2-methyl-) Polychlorinated biphenyl, N.0.5.* Potassium cyanide j Potassium silver cyanide (Argentate(1-), dicyano , potassium) Pronamide (3,5-01 chloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2 propynyl) benzamide). , 1,3-Propane suitone (1,2-Oxathiolane, 2,2-dioxide) n-Propylamina (1-Propanamine) Propylthiouracil (Undecamothylenediamine, N,N'-bis (2-chlorobenzyl-), dihydrochloride) 2-Propyn-1-ol (Propargy) alcohol) i i Pyridine Radium -226 and -228 l' Reserpine (Yohimban-16-carboxy 11c acid,11,17-dimethoxy-18-[3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoyl) oxy] , methyl ester) 81 r..- _
-=m - , . . , - . _ _ . g ,,,,,_,..m..y _,q.., , .jy,%,,
o . (7590-01) Resorcinol (1,3-Benzenediol) Saccharin and salts (1,2-Benzoisothiazolin-3-one, 1,1-dioxide, and salts) Safrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-a11yl-) Seienious 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-nitroscureido)-) Strontium sulfide Strychnine and salts (Strychnidin-10-one, and salts) 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzene,1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-) 2,3',7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin (TCDD) (Oibenzo p-dioxin, . 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-) Tetrachloroethane, N.O.S.* (Ethane, tetrachloro , N.O.S.") 1,1,1,2-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane,1,1,1,2 .tetrachloro-) . 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane,1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-) Tetrachloroethane (Ethene,1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-) Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 2,3,4I6,-Tetrachlorophenol (Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-) Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate-(Dithiopyrophosphoric acid, tetraethyl.-ester) Tetraethyl lead (Plumbane, tetraethyl-) Tetreethy1 pyrophosphate (Pyrophosphoric acide, tetraethyl ester) Tetr'anitromethane (Methane, tetranitro-) Thallium and compounds, N.O.S.* 82
----y-, - m--- - ---,_ w---+4-em --
---p- > , . .--- - - - - --a t,.e-- - ------- .-- ----.er,. ----wwy----------.-.-~ ysm- , , .----- ------my% a yy, ----
Lisvo-vaa Thallic oxide (Thallium (III) oxide) t 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 (Ethanethicamide) Thiosemicarbazide (Hydrazinecarcothicamide) Thiourea (Carbamide thio-)
,Thiuras (Bis (dimethylthiocarbamoyl) disulfide)
Thorium and compounds, N.O.S.*, when producing thorium byproduct material Toluene (Benzene, methyl-) Toluenediamine (Diaminotoluene) o-Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine, 2-methyl , hydrochloride) Tolylene diisocyanate (Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatemethyl-) Toxaphene (Camphone, octachloro-) Tribronomethane (Brosoform) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene,1,2,4-trichloro-) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Ethene,1,1,2-trichloro-) Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene) Trict,):romethanethiol (Methanethiol, trichloro-) .. Trahloromonofluoromethane (Methane, trichlorofluoro-)
- 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-)
5 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-) - 83 s- ----- y* e--n y---- w- .-. -- g,e-9-.,.--,_.--- . . -_ _ .- g , -,-- --.,,-w-.w-. .-
[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-Trichloropropane (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 (1,1'-biphenyl)- 4,4'-dfyl) bis (azo)] bis (5-amino-4-hydroxy , tetrasodium salt) Uracil mustard (Uracil 5-[ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino 3-) Uranium and compounds, N.0.5.* Vanadic acid, ammonium salt (ammonium vanadate) Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium (V) oxide) Vinyl chloride (Ethene, chloro-) Zinc cyanide Zinc phosphide l , 1986.- Dated at Washington, DC this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission. 84 7
e l i i i 4 e AflPR!t O 9 e e 00 6 I F S ene
" b b
ENCLOSURE B e I
Federal Register / Vol. 49. Nr. 22.s / M:nday. November 28.1984 / M4 Ilules %
..,' i i
i 14 CPR Part de Urspesa IIe Teenge Rogueseener erewes weser Preessmen ens omer kommes aemesv.' Nuclear Reydetory e -- asTtems Advensed esees of proposed
.. . rehemeking. '
, Eususser:The Nesiser Reedesary Cemetense (NRC)is seendering further ameneesente to its utomum mill tellings repdatsene. The future rulemalung presseding for whr.h this necce as isoned is primarily usteoced te tocorporate yemed water protocues proviesces and other roguatemente esta2M by the Eavitsamental
- protection Agoney for simular hasardous weases into NRC reydatsene.This senen a necessary to make NRC requeremente esadar to EPA standards j es reguated by provimene of the Ureanna Mill Tadsage Radianen Centrol Act.
84,5:The comment period empires lsausty 23. teel Commeem received sher the date will be eensidered if it is l preencel to de es bot assursace of j senaderause may sat be gives except i
~ es to commente reenved en er before i
tus date.
, aeoneseos Mail comments to Secretary. U1 Nuclear Regulatory Ceauneeseen. Weekington, DC ansk Attenties: Decheung and Service
. Bronch. er deliver ceremenu to Reen 1121.1717 H Sawt NW. Washingtse.
DC between t18 aJo sad Se ;.m. ( weekdays. so ri iememeavi e conran,i Robert Fenaar. Of5ce of Esecurtve I.agal aroeter. top (sot) est-asst er Kitty S. Drogeestte. Dviesen of Weste u...g .. UA Nuc!sse Roydetery r 9
.- . ~ - - . . . - - - - --- .. . - - . _ . _ - -- --
i
- 434 3 Federal Eagheer / Vcl 48. No. 22s / bdonday. Novossber 28. 1984 / Proposed Rules e-- Weahasses.DC203s3. would then incorporate withm NRC alternann proposals as reatme teleptor.e (391) 4F-4JDB. regmanene ejensente of DA's SWDA twaamng esuosa.
masonseomeramt emesenaftset N requarements already imposed by DA* ' 2 ' L Beskysend en the Groemd Water Numear Assissaary e-== == bas and estabhsh say further regarements l toaay propused moneeseems se its esseenery for the NRC to have SWDA- J easeems usu asahags regelsesse is comoersoie standards as caded for by De SWDA roguarentente imposed by 4 . Aposeen A to to CFR Port a for the See: son ad of the Alesess Emergy Act of the DA is its rule puolished October 7 purpass of condesmaag them to generally ISM. se amended. 19E5 fes FR essel were described by apphenbie senadente preenisated by N Comeuamos coandered further the DA is that Noace as fol!cws: i the Eartrennestal Prwoction Agency reviesens to Appendia A to conform it to "Coaststant with the standards DA ' (DAl on Septessber 30,1983 f ase to TR the phyescal stabdity aspects of the DA issued under $a SWDA far hazardous asum Ocieber 7.1ssel. Die advance atandart but dad not propese them. The wastes (47 FR 322N323as, Jujy :s. :as:1 neece of proceeed rulemaksas t ANPRM) DA standard togwares that the Saal the standard for taahnes pdes has two aememenes est the Ceaualesion is sever doesyt prende resseeable parts:(1) A *pnaary' standard taat I consdertas propemag furtAer answence of efocuve control"for ese regeres use of a hast desagned to moeScanone ta its regulattens is to thoussed yeare, to the extent reasonably prevent mayeues of hasarcous CPR Part etL to eenefy cartain eromanens actuevable. and ta any case, for at least autetances out of the impoundment, and of the Ureasus MillTreahmen Aadianen 200 yeare/* The DA's auserical (2) a ' secondary' yound water Castrol Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), and leegovity standard takes a di#erent preteenen standard reque.ag a efect, , requests pebile comments as peruneet appreest to etahdity than de se NRC that any hasardous semantuents that taouse and quesosas. rogmromonts. In Appendam A. the NRC leak hem as weste set be aHowed to On October F.1sEL the DA puhushed estabhased numerous presenpave doyede yound water.N primary i goesreAiy applicable standards for the requirements fue spemas demas features standard appiaes es asw pornens of new ! management of uranium and thenum in oreer to assere sesbelity wieser er esamens areste depoestones. N i ,,y a matecas, ne standards were senve assatemence for as indadaats secondary senadard applies to new and deveisped by the DA a a masser to pened of ame foHowtag ciesers.De emanas pereens the poet of , i senefy es prensions of asemen 2ys of DA riale eats a performanse standard Wa- bases et me edge of the the Atosc Energy Act as amended, for a !!sted une gened. la addinen, the waste 'Paha=* The oper.tSc ! est for nearediological hasards, es preambio to the DA sanaderd and the hasardens mhasaases and eseadards "* *
- ehan prende for the . suppernas ermreamental eveimanen coneestroemas ILa. beakgeund leseis) .
'* mdannes eat the DA asassemely i . preteenes of heman henhh and the *- that dadas assommainanes wie the
=l envirussenat meanssens unth the consedered es seespeability of relytag secondary essadard at seca este udi be i standards regered under Sebude C of en ecove masatenance to pnevide setsbieshed for arentum mil taalings by ee Solid Wasse Diaseoal Act as sashdity followtas closure. and did not NRC and Ayeoment States. De SWDA emended. which are applicable to such preeshte tL Asther. the DA standard reise. however. permet afternete hasards."To ashneve taas goal the DA regerse that, for meeredioispcal concesesnea lists te bd =asaMahad taciudad withat its requ.rementa basares the need for acuse maintenance when they wsu not pose -' ' *a ! pubhahad October ?. tamL esiscted only be maanmaand.NRC's Appendia A subasannal preesst er possadal hasard prenasses from its rugmations neeued flasly preanists any alamaad reumano en te human henie at the envweensat" as under the Saud Weste Diepenal Act acave maustmanse, long as the allemene comeostranos limat (TWDA) by crees soferseenas the SWDA De Commestem regosses cessmente is not seemodest he stie aise aileur i pnrvimena. Nee speciAs provinar.a are on whether it should doises or mesiipp (sic)'hasardous conentesets* to be new e efect and the NRC is addtuomal previssess of Appendia A "*"tMed hem coverage try the permet I sensidertag undertalues a rulesnaking tacindias presurtpeve roquaramenta for bened es she same critertes. DA l wtuck woud clarity its repalations by speaAc deep fasaarse whsst may not deterunnes the altamate conces.ranca inciuding withan een these SWDA be asesenary to meet tas DA standard. etsadard or eaamption under es regaremente selected by me DA for N pressespeve regaremense a SWDAe DA's sensurresen would be apphcseem to arensam and therrem au quesaas actode these for -=a roquand under the proposed standards tashess. opewease drosnese area. meses whe,,f for tadance." De rulemahang ender ceasederedse there to good wund protecnoa, releevely The DA weet se to forther deserthe would else he intended to seinefy a 8dt eispee, mandatory vegetanve or the primary standard, ymnartly regarement pieced sees to NRC eder resk sever, cobble enas rech, hagh quality commenasof thelinerdeseen esenen as of the Atomes2 aery Act of rock cover, and resh aeg N requirements and clanfy the =====Amey 1964. as amended. te -' *
- meme met Commamos alas ceaandered deseong '
standard, by seying the managesanat of esy bypsueest te presshinen en rehanes se acave "N premory standard, og CFR matenet * *
- is carned aus la seek manateessee, andafytne Gneensa 3 294.221. can eeusily be seneded only by senser as conforms to general . mandense beiew yede despeeni es ee-.- usegJines'matensis (such as pioence) --- l requiremeets estatuated by the pntne opnem and deleens the est can retaan au wastee. Esempftene
- Coremessoa. une the canaarremes of the requirement for background redhan permitting use of other liner matertals (DA) Adeusastrator. wfisch are to the concentrations la cover restertels. Reuet (such as clay) that may release water er maastaiam esteet presucable, et toest hem these retained prensions as seau quaanues of other subasances ar.
comparable to requirements opphenbae avedable through case.by.ceae is some cassa, poemataas as haar may , to the pensensiaa treasfer, and dispeeal propeasta by lasanases as neced sa be yeased sair d suyetnes of of sindar hasardous metectairegulated propeesd add 6asas es se immeducase basardoes eenesteente inte me gromed by tite Admaistrater under the Solid of Appendia A of 10 CFR a De wever er earfees weser woeld be - Weere Disposal Act. as amended.* De Commse on seeks comssent se whether prevented medeenstely * ' *.* ' , ruiemaktag under cenaderenen. wh6cm thse la sof5 evert !!extintify in vtew of the "Under mese standards, aR new , la the pnmery settoct of tsus ANpRM. Commesson's latest to cesador waste storege areas (whether new O O N I .
Federal Register / WI. 4g. No. 228 / Mand:y Nsvsmb r 28. 1984 / Propos:d Rules 44427
^ 1954. as amended. Conmeent with that waste facilitsee or expaamons of ensung and the followmg secuona of the SWDA authority and ta accordance wtui pdes) are subtect to se prietary regulacons:
- i. Subpart F: escuan sac, of that Act. the Commiseson
,, '- t h limer requarement. If new has the discrocon to review and wates an added to an omstang pde. 40 CFR 2s4.91 Required pregrams l 40 CFR 284.95 Pomt of compiaance approve site speedic alternatives to however.the pde must comply mth the standards promulgated by the 40 CFR 294 9e Compliance per:od ' secondary s ?t h basardous a
40 CFR 2s4.37 Genere! ground mster Comaussion and by 2e Ademistrator of l consatuant consentredes standards for monstonas regarements the Environmental Protecuan Agency. la heehh and envireemental protscuen. i Whether for a new or ensang pde. if the 40 CFR 284 98 Detecnon monitcnns the eserctae of thaa authenty, secton proerse tec. does mot teguare the Commisaton to ! secondary standards are found not to be 40 CFft 2e4.30 Compliance monitorms g,, g, , g g, sans8ed and subsequent correcuve ocuona fad to achaeve compliance m a program Admastrator ta any site spectAc reasonable use. the operstar must ,, u. Subpart C. Warnaan educh sananes Commmion cease depositang weets on eat pde. 40 CFR 284.117 Poet. closure care and requirements for es level of protecton l> Also a its October 7.1983 Nouce. the use of pmpw y for pubhc health. safety. and tne DA stated that UA's responsibihties u.Subpan L ertvtronssent8rosa radiological and to establish standarde under section 20e 40 CFR 284.228 Momtorms and
- aonradiolopcal hasards at uratuum ad!
insMcDon am p undasent Mk 88 taalange mus. As an eman pie. 6e l aber art i e to ng ^ euoms of ee SWDA mgulacons: 40 b Coeure and postclosure og the as tot in case-by f Subpart p. . care, as appucable. demmanuma d alurnenve 40 CFR ase sg Ground weier protecuon The above quotsoons from the DA's concentressa hats and dehnung of
=
40%"hsa,dou. cone tu.no re'a;','an,2='lt",;'s o ::i,,M Pg,,;,: ,=,,f mac - i (These ad.pted - i 1== am esecons re ed and "me.@e Udndemang .e NRCm* pmpmed conferenas mgulancas deal is *- m d ee ~=-- e mMambury ami assenty emier es j 40 GR 2ss.lon Carrecuve action ceasidenna undertakans.The NRC has Atome Emergy Act of 1994. y se program reviewed me language quoted and. enth - mgards aressam ad! taahags satse and . I (Thas esceos is medt8ed and adopted as g, ,,,,pgen g g, g,,,- r- have no broeder seenstanos.
,, * . -1ISL33) .- ,. concerns discussed a the todounas The Commesenes beneves that
- 11. Subpart C. escaea, boueves it to be factually correct sad a faar repressa anca of the tie ===== proposala for altamataves can i 40 CFR 284.111 Casure performancs be an important and eNective way to standard teaues addressed.
i . help deal with the problems associated (This secnon is adopted as part of G. Cammmasa Ausenty sad mth implesmannas the new DA l e an.n l titL32(bM11) standards. The Commission sapects that 12.Sub'* K Secticaesc.of the AteensEnergy Act it may regare several yests to have ite !' 40 CFR 2e4.221 Desipi and opereung states that: A 1.icassee may propese conformaag regulauens fully in place. It mqmmmenta for surface alismaeves to specafic requirements espects a use se Gesabahty provided , ] D (This escues modLSed and adopted as e.es this act. Such ead pprow pre in e f i1 eMtil alteraanve proposals may take into licenseen.Seenos tec. provides NRC i
NRCs respeembihees under sessuat local er reposal conditions. suficient authenty to todependently
' tJMTRCA are to implement DA's including geology. topogreediy. approve alterneuves so long as the standard and to " ' ' insure est the hydrology and meteorology.The ra=='a=== can make me mquand
====g===att of any 6 H Caenuseios may treat such alternauves i
se sausfytas Commission requ:rements demnation. 1 maimel * *
- is carned out in sus h e 51. leeuse far puhus '*-*=
manner se * *
- sonfonas to general if to Commseien detonanaes that such requirements estabhahed by the altamauves unil achieve e level of The NRC requests public comment on Commessen. me the eencurrense of the
- stabi!!aanes and coatsiament of me the general quesnon of how best to i Admaastrater. which are, to the sites concemed. and a level of protocuon for public health, sofery. sad proceed to fulA11 ste responsibdices i mamamum extent preencable, at leset under the Atome Energy Act. mth comparable to regereseeats apphcable the environment from radiolopcal and to tae posseesion, essefer. and disposal anatsdiotopcal hasards aseectated unth respect to estabhalung SWDA.
such estes, wiuch is equavaient to. to te comparable regtastetsents for de of simlar hasardous matenal regulated 1 entent procusable, or more stringent management of mdl tadings, to the by the Adeurustrator under the $WDA. ** se amended.' DA wdlianers ter NRCe than the levet which wedd barechteved*~ mezimium extent practicable. In this by standards and requirements adopted contest, cemenents am requested on !' regulanens eenefy these edssonations through its cone'c.trence role. Relev ent and enforced by se Comeusessa for the choices and doctsions me NRC raust make concernang tesues and scuens that ,'. SWDA reyulauens are these embedded same purpose sad any Raal standards promulgated by the Adeunastrator of te en wtein its dancronoa.Coeusents on in Subparte A (except Secusa 284.U. B. C. D. L F. C. H. and K. Examples of EnvironmentalProtecnos Agencyla the basic value. vahdity. lawfulness or l ' areas which NRC must addmes ta accordance with escuen 273. appropnateness of the UA's SWDA I discharyng these responsibihtus The r'a==- histoncally has had reydanons, to SWDA. w me I;MTRCA tavolve fuscuens under se sus secuens the nothonty and roepensibdary te ,, ,,q,,,4 l hated immediately above whicit are regulate the ocurtties of persons
- lacorporated inte $ase UA standards. !icensed under the Ateous Emergy Act of i
i I r i I , J > 1 .
~ '
-* u,#7*
m Fedesa! EsWeser / WoL es. No. 2:s / bionday. Noveenber :n, tens / Propeesd Itales A. Teaserve MICAgronobforCeuund A laeuse ene@mecane (el How desded should NRC's i WeserAusseems The NRC aseks public tapet wtth menianen be, and what shoeid and The NRC has deselsped a tenssen respect to all aspects of the gassues of sineio set be menmd la ams suce as j
, g i ,geen N how best to feiful its roepensibilises **I 8'asencean, seaplaag and sempie -
a A d requiremens in Iso sageindene, haesd es plasmang W 6 h g f,,g,nd te g ,,,,M,c, , ",,,,,,,* 3 pumcoes of yound weter, The NRC emmatreseas, maaimum detwaas sendes*.ed a dem.This appseech is levala, amtseve and la modo e part of his aies seeks puhnc commt me musst 4,,,,,,steestsal I
,,,,,gassement
,,,,,,,gyof date and l pahile esseencement se oferte spent ta w me fenomas iseum and qwtiens ne
"" agnuncast dunsances. recordh l 7 %%g,ishtmbe 7,J$*QLTi, and spress spianty umsasYsr e esmat et addiseme to NRC fact for any eposene edered e, C sugaissem fmeer a bisek imen at me should the SWDA impact analyses seasider'.ag me nature me d i.CrR est e- peamW br ,m, ems.,e ,a i,e ,ias.4emperable elesreg.re amenon of a new Part 41) which wenid e NRC and.r um.dera.on.
m be @uy moung a seus dwWeb have already been eestam es men om d SWDA. tapened by DA and are essenvef !! 1 eenpershie segessemeau, precieely duphcote DNs langesse. er should sabotasave rogurumanas he empperung envuseastal evalessees are The addleene would be segemand la paraphrased? aseded for SWDA eenpershie rule terme et deep. opereens cimenre, and (2) Shouid au of Subpart F be shaeges essept for the resuremente ' poet.ciseure regesruments. and would to lacided? What should est be insiededt already impeesd by to DA. should the the Adlest extent foamble. be a esoplete (al What should be aasinded e a NRC assesse to psummed with saly a str.tement of the requsrements without lisees of hasaresmo eensaanense der mill sensie rulemahans to essablish a commisee aderenes to DA regemesas in Title tailiage to replass to amian less het est of SWDAwampershie regidsamienter
- e of the Code of Federal Requissens,la in Appendia vel to e CFR Pan 231 (101la the flsenhutty stead la the
- this wey, the reguremente could be referemmed is e CFR assise? Shee&d proposed additsee es the immedsedan et j stated la e soit. assumed, entRed cementeens est useaHy prenant ermet Appendia A te CPR Put a seSalset er i asemer to see plese. Coverage weeld present shove sees leveis be muhadest should the NRC develop and support i . Insiede etleast es SWDA reanimeente What miene should be appued to addleenal mediReasses to esadum to .
already topmeed by DA (e t'FR desde what semesaments ehemid be .
. the physsent senhility espose of the EFA.
.. . 2ss.azesseetc& san.11r.a.E.362r1L lastaded? . seendard?
nad apprepnete peresse of the SWDA (4) The NRC meet seenhiieh SWDA. j regemeente menneesd by the DA sempershie regurements to the W W&in e CFR Pas e t explietly as "esamples of arena wheek mastmum entent preensable.la this Covernment essenste. Haessdeae NRC meet addrees"(these insinde 4s centext. what is precacehle aves metena& -eenspenseen. Naciser i ! CFR mLat se. Joe 11y.23623 sad . current preense and the currest state of matenais.Pamesty. Reporeas and
- i mu Sk toshmoiegyF recordkeeping regerenssta.Seeres The ruissaknas boag sammdered fe, (s) Shemid NRC retain the basic matensk and Urearum, preessel try tae NRC any insinde most sequense sahedded is Subpart F where Deesd se westensma.DC.em ama day of of Subpan F (40 CFR Jaus-tapk des ta laconnese who detest yound water Naumte tone. ,
the sieme mienenadas and contaminattom proyees through a yer me Nasiner Reguisesry Caennemme. ' , innarespondoesy of the separete graduated seele of acesa, bem semesi g. g33, proweses, and benemos all but e GR dmoenen scenenes thmek Semessryofshe'" - me.se6 "Appinenhdity." le meer engmeed empuamp mutanas and se W ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or mennened as as eaample by the DA. corman essee. wie signScast one ,,,,,,,,, The remarsder of the DNs SWDA
* "*" "I'I' regula nena, incinding Submert A (essout
*** "",,h*"8 -
g t 284JL S. C.D. L F. C. H. and E would e be reviewed la developing a propenal to buid'IM,, ,visehie.
,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, f,,,,W,g,,w g ,, ;
deurmans wech of tese sqmmessa allNRClissesses have approved wedd and to be laamperated in NRC mgulamene ta amabiloh NRC sempuence
,,, ,,,,,,g asestenne,propean
,gy ,,g, ,,g ,,g .
that reqmresents whink are a the maaesem g ,g ,,g ,g ,,,g ,qt emient preencabisw as lemet ensparette (el Shend es bens SWDA sahame to the DNa SWDA segelsemange for , similar basardone menenal. .for,,g to ammer.and,,dereses
,,, g, siseere"dpened. a . .. . .
In developing this propenal the NRC and a " post closure care" pened be I would distangmah between omhetaaeve maastaanydf What meddleatisme. I reqmromants and DNe preendural delenene, addleens should be moder ' pernatuas regaronesta because it dose (7) To what outset how, and under i eet believe se OffRCA mandate what sendittene should leak detecess ; reqmros the NRC to adopt aaf ponies el systems under sinW ' the precedural penmittag aspects of imposedness be auewed to AdflR ee i DA's regulattees. The NRC's requerenese fbr e detecess mestenug , i estabhshed F: - _ forlicencias proyam that meerwtes regenree a
- inspecnea. and enforessent weedd be monitanas wou is es apponeset i used with roepect to 6=r a====eatles, agudorf i
i j
.F i
EPA STNIDARD e e 0 on e 6 6
'm EtiCLOSURE C 1
i e i e 4 5
. __. - - . - - - .. . _- - .-. . - ._ ,. . _ ~ . . - - - __ .. .
e t l l! a l j' ! 1 Uranium heuTailless Radisese Caneel Act pwpose of tina Subpart. of tere. Puh. L eMoe. as aseended. (c) Controlmeans any action to ', > staintise. labibit fatare masuse of. ct ' rednee emissions er of5uests frasa . wenium byproduct matanais. t . Subpart h for (d)Imsnoodseer meses the eres 1 . . Management of iJrunnem syproeust ecstained withis the boundary of a Mesanute pursuant to Soemen M ei the legados under the essent of pereses Atomie Energ Aet of Igg 4 as gnearetag or seering uranians bypredest
. Asamedad eatsnais under a Mesase issued puseast to Sesses se of the Act.For
. lunas assememy. purposes of this sehsert. unsumed ste-This subput appues to the is egavaleet to tegolated unt"la
. management of urentiabyproduct Subpart F of part age of this chapter. i matenals andar Section se of the Atende (ei oisposalaim means a site selected 'i
. Easrgy Actof test (henceforth pwomaat to Sendes at of the Act.
- destriated "me Act"), as assaded. (f) Osposelatos means the rug on datag sad fouewing processing of withis the portmeter of as impoundmaat j
PART 193-HEALTH AND areolum ores, sed to restoration of or pda costalaims ureales by product EnviRQuassurai.pRorterxne disposet mies fouowing any use of such monnals is wegch de p.t.ciosme STANDARDS POR URANIUS$ ANO mtes ender Seedoe 83(b)(1)(3) of the requiressem of I tsL32(b)(1) of tids
- THORIUM esulTAILlHGS Act- subpart apply.
g ig&S1 Oueseems med Creseawarensen. (3) Asgelesseyage symeans the u
,n._._.__.
. .yuc, e, ga,uism,,
I: Suspert N for Referessee la this subpart tip other (h) CJosurepenedaeans the period of g pers of the Code of Federal Regulations mese begaang with me esemanen, with ! Meterteis pursuant to Seesen Se W Wie are he these pass as codiSed as january respect to a weste i=t=~4=at. of 1* IEE' areniemi ore processing opereitens and Atomie Energy Aet of 1964 se Asiended (a) Uelses otherwies indicated 'a tida ending enth completos of reqarements
- enhpart, all terms sha2 have the ease spemoed under a closure plan.
- see, messing as in Title B of the Ursalum (il Clasarep/es means the plas
- teue Applissbility.- heill Tadings Radiation Control Act of required ender i 236.112 of tius chapter.
tesJ1 Defhueses and Cmesveferesses. Isra, Subparte A and 5 of this part, or (j) K.rrst!gpartion means that lead l parts 1st age,231.and 2s4 of this , teLas Sesedeeds. surface area of as ezisens surines tats: Cenesen Assee Preynma. chapter.For the purpeens of tins impoundreset on which signatcast )' teue EsmewDas. subpert, the terms "weste." "hasartious wesee. and eviated terms, as used la q,.ang , ege, m ;g > - 7 materials he,e been pleoed pner is - - Subpart E--Sandares ,,, parts 300.2g1 and 204 of this chapter Management W TheMum Byproduct " - - ' dos of this standant.
- sbau app!y to byproduct material.
- asamness puranne to Season ad of the e u nas s enseen.
(b) f./aminer 6ypsoduct medenei A I"*'W A*I # NO * ** means the tadings or westes produced (a) ,$esederidr.4sr applicedon derrtW by the estraceos or concentretson of proceerlag sysrocene andanor#lhe taae Assissetlity. uranium froen any oes processed , andof #Ae cJoomoperiod (11 Surface b_; _ ^ --te (except for an esisdag C ter.41 Prerteiens. prinsedy for its source matenal content, i tetet Subsumew Pr, weas. Ore bodies deeteted by urentum portion) subloct to this sebpart must be
; see.es sheen D es, solution entrecuen operations sed designed, omnsessted. and instaued la Asshusey: Sec.2"5 elthe Alessac Emergy e4ch remaan underyouad do not such manner as to comform to the Act of tese, et USC. ans. as added by the constitute " byproduct restenal" for the requirements of l 2e4J.21 of this chaper.
t
-ne----v+-e,--.- --ww-w _ ---,-ram,,ve-e,_- _w-
-s~---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Federal Register / Vol. 4a. No.196 / Fridsv. October 7.1933 / Rules and Rect!arions 439 except that at sites where se annual (4) The regulatory agency,la i tes.34 Enesem amo. , pree:pitat:oa falling en the unpoundment conformity with Federal Radistten Sucp.rt O snail 5e effee.sve Dece nt
, and any drainase area centnbutir:3 Protec: ca Cuidanet (FR. Wy 111980. 6.1943.
q sur' ace runoff to the impousement is pgs. 4ec2-3). shad make every effort to i less than the amenal eveperemos from mast.tein radiation doses frern rados Tasi.s A l the inf==* 4===* the sogesruments of emissions 8 rom surface unpoundments l 2se.22B(a)(2Xill)(El referseesd in of utaruum byproduct raaterre!s as far _ . , . _ sc = l 204J21 do not apply. below the Federal Radiation Protection (2) Uretuuss bypreauct materials shall Gedes sa is praedcable at ear.h licensed 7 E *" 7 M ,,,,e,l be =anaged se as to conform to the l sta. ground water protondon standard in (b) SicMarels /br applicerron efter the J l me.se of this chapter, asept that for c/sen; erred. At the end of the closure , i the perpeese of this subpart penod: suteert a-stensarea ter ! 0)To se tiet of hasardous (1) Disposal areas shaR each comply Management of T*irmam Syproeust esmesments referessed is i 2es.ss of wie the closure pertenmanes standard unioness pursuant to seemen sa of s' this chapter am added me chamacal in i 3L111 of this chapter with respect Asemse Energy Act et 1964, as ' i
"'"""""es to naaradioloysal and areasum.haurds and shad be Amenced
. (ii) Te osacentratten units 881ybdenum demased 8 m W reessaanle provided la Table 1 of 5 294.84 of this I'''''""*'Y' i; chapter are added the redleestivit7 usurance of couroiof rediW This subsert applies to the i hasards to l . limits in Table A of this subpert. g g, g g % ,g management of thorrun byproduct 011) Detessoa mestartag preyams materials under Section as of the Atom: . ' to ehe estent reasonably actisavah!e. g,, uder i MLas m ambush se and. e. or le at 20 years, standards regnared under i 34.s3 shan and fouewrag processing of thortum and be completed withis eno (1) year of eres and to resserssos of disposal mee non, 7.g ,g,,, ,, ,,, i following any ese of such saase under , tegolately assesy v.sy uraniums byprednet matenais to the i (iv) assosphere se as to not enesed as Secdon 83(bM1XE] of me Aes. embush altersom ammessesses unim I (to be sedaded at the potat of anrege 8 reisese rueg of 20 picacunes . I tes.41 passene. . e I / *
. commuanes speciaod under i 2s4.3s) per aguare meter per sensed (pC/m8r). The prevtmens of Sebpart D of this i
seder the arttens of I 2es.e4(b), (21 The requiremene of Sostias . part. instuding ilisL21. isL22. and provided that, aner seendertag isL22(bMt) shall not apply to any isL23. sand appiy to thansa byproduc
-m pornoa of a !! censed and/or disposal matertal and:
oorreenve acname tese l . flants are as low as resseeably site which contains a concentranea of (a) Provisions applicable to the achievahia, and that, la any case. the radium.23 la land, averaged over areas eieasst uremem saan aise apply to the standards of I 234.34(a) are seasRed at of100 square meters, wtuca as a result eissent therrumu
~
au pesam at a gester distanes thes 300 of uranium bypredest metenet does not (bl provimons asp!! cable to redon.T.: L meters from the edge of the disposal exceed the beckpeund level by mere shnu aise apply :a reden.220 and ' ares and/,or entende em site boundary, east: (c provisions asplicable to radiuai-and (il s piesennes per yes (pC/s). 22s shan aise apply to esatum.22a. (vi The feasesas and reopensibilities averaged ever the f! ret u comumeters (d) Oversaans covered under - designated la Part 234 et tins chapter as (cal below the surtece, and 11sL221al shail be condus:ee in such a these of the "Repenal Adanaiserstar" Dilis pC/s. everaged overis em manner as to provide reasonable with respect to '*faelity permuts* shnu thick layers mere saa is cut beisw the assersace that the annual dose be carned est by the regulatory ageasy. sortees, egevelent dose not exceed 23 millirem except that emeespesas of baserdens to the whole body. 75 augirems to tfte consatuants under i 284.83 (bl and (c) of I mLas cesneem Aasen omgrena, thyroid. and 3 mallirens to any other : 21s chapter and alternate eseessenese !!the ground water standards erges of any member of the public as a L limits established under i 236a4 (b) and estabushed eder provtetens of Sectica reonit of espesures to the piaaned (c) of this chapter (maagt as otherwise 1st22(aM21 are esseeded as any discharge of radiance w matenals. provided is i IstataM2Mtv)) aball not liseased sita, a certestive estos redes.IIe and its daughters excepted. : De efective emelEPA has essanted proyen as spee8sd la 2SL10B of tids the general environment, therena, skapter shan be petlass operseen se (3) Ureaham trypsedmet estatals shah sees as is pr=d=m and la as event IuLes sunseemserwesene, be managed se as to semisset to the later than eighteen (18) asaaks aner a The regulatory asesey may, wtth the previsione et Sading of seseadassa, esasurrense of epa. subeatste for any (a) Part1se of this chapeer. Provtsions of I 19141 of this subpart J "Invireemental Radiaries protectica alternadve provimens it deems more em .,,s ,g ,,,s , % u,,,eense h, i Standards fer Musteer Power resse.ma aaer amadness er an ensusasser procesal that wiu provide ei teast sa . Operouses* and e6 ogavaient level of protectos for huma '
' d'"*8 **' * '"s"su*p'e*r
% " emes ama w es emme one of heegt): and the sumronment.
(b) Part 44e of this chapter. "Cro Mimag and Dmemag Point Source .,nsn,e'ssenes
,,,,,,,,,,,,e,,3 ,s,enses asase,r a,s iense ses rees.
,,,,,,,,,,e,,,, , ,,g ,, g,,,,, , ,,,,,
Categoryr ElBuent IJmitauses sen m,,,semas nenamenum Gedeuses and New Seures* as.enas enamnem easse omsmens som assues SubpartIshaH be efecen Decembe , Performanes Standards. Subpart C. ****'*** ***"id ** **=*"8 ** 8'a of d'"8'eme s 1sEL Ursenma. Radium. and Vaasdlum Cres , ,,,,, ;,,,,, , ,v,,,w ,,,,, ,,,,,,, Sebestegory. . .
',",*",,",g,'*,,8M".mmasam*,e,,*,
messiens i. e. mame ,,",,",',"',,hsesnt sees ammee 1 I L- . J- __ ~ ~ ~~'
, 6 - * - A e
4 g 9 e 0 J e e ENCLOSURE D i 4 e 3 4 1 f 4 mm O 1 s
. , l I
- . umi ;
l> .q . NRC CONSIDERS REGULATIONS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER NEAR URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES ihe Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering amending its regulations on uranium mill tailings 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. f The NRC's proposed regulations would incorporate two principal EPA I standards: (1) Licensees and applicants would have to install a liner under surface I 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 ;
~
finds that alternative design and operating practices, along with characteristics of the specific site where the mill tailings ar.e. ' . . located, will , i , prevent migration of specifie,d hazardous maprials into the ground or surface ll
- water. > e - F I.N N N N O . i I - - -- - -- ___-_ _ _ Z . _ _ Zi __ __ _ _ _
. un ri (2) If specified hazardous materials--both radioactive and I
non-radioactive--enter the ground water near a licensed mill tailings site, I 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 < l environment. If the Commission does establish a higher concentration limit for a l
- hazardous material at a particular site, it will require that the co'n centrations be as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account the . f state of technology and the economics of improvement in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atemic energy in the public. interest.
The proposed NRC rules would also require licensees to establish a . detection and compliance monitoring program to detect any leakage from the disposal area and ensure that the ground water complies with standards set by the Commission. If the standards are exceeded, a corrective action program must be put into operation as soon as it is practicable, and in any event - within 18 months. e
- ~ _
e g 4 P
.m. m w, ------r-- ,,,--,-,----,--,--,,-,m,n--.,,_,.-.,.,,, -- ---,__.,,_,,.---,,---...,c. , . . , . . - . . . , . . . . , . , ,. - - - s 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 proposed rule in the i 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. i l i { i - e i an
* * *O O l , =
e o 1 l l'
I l f { i l t l i ENCLOSURE E i . I i l
- I l
E r 1 b f i r 1 I I . l s l l c 1 i J j -- ...
- l .
! l< ENCLOSURE E t l^
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 I of mill tailings and waste. l l The NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 (Public Law 97-415, signed January 4, f 1983) contained a requirement that the Commission modify its afil tailings , l regulations to conform to final Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . I . standards for these materials. Final standards were signed by the t 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 rulemaking 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 amenced. 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., 1 f r 7
2-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 ano Safeguards
Enclosures:
- 1. FR Notice on proposed amendments
- 2. Public Announcement ,
G l m- n - .
O
=
4 e RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCEDURES 0 9 I l l' i i l l l l
'~
.-=
~
- 2. CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING 2.1 Sockground Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to 1.he EDO 2.1.1 13, 1984, on the above subject, the E00 airected Sy memorandum dated February that, effective April 1,1984, all offices unoer the EDo's purview and respon-sible for rulemaking must obtain the ED0's approval to begin and continue a specific rulemaking.
To assist the EDO in his review of rulemakings (proposed and ongoing) directed that RES independently review rulemakings and make recommend
- to the EDO concerning whether to proceed with rulemaking.
In accordancu with the E00's memorandum, the pr approved by the EDO. The procedures cover RES independent reviews at two stages of rulema development:
- Review to begin new proposed rulemakings.
- Annual review of ongoing rulemakings.
2.1.2 Purpose of RES' Independent Review The first purpose of the RES independent review is to provide for a sp control evaluation of the rule at key stages of its development (i.e., e stages review). where sufficient information has been-develo EDO concerning whether to proceed with the rulemaking. it The second purpose of the RES independent re The RES independent recommendations have been requested in his review of rulemakings (proposed and ongoing). ' Accordingly, RES' independent review and indepe rulemakings. J 2.l.3 Focus of RES' Independent Review d The RES independent review will focus ) d on n guidelines approved and recommended for NR 2-1 NU/8R-0094 CH 2 09/06/85 ,
- , - - . - - - - - - - - -- - . - , , , , - - ,,,,,y._-- -. - - -
t . i will be constrained by e.g. , at the earliest stage of rulemaking, the l ing staff on evaluat documents l tion will the limited availability and preliminary nature of und i include more fully developed underlying documents. Primary References of RES' Independent Reviewf rulemakings will 2.1.4 The primary references used by RES for independent review ofor NRC s be procedures and guidelines approved and recommended undertaking a rulemaking proceeding. documents: The references include, but are not limited to,f the theU.S.following Nuclear NUREG/BR-DD58, Revision 1, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines o Regulatory Commission," May 1984. 1983. NUREG/CR-3568, "A Handbook for Value-Impact 6, 1984, Assessment," Rev. 1. D Charter - Committee to Review Generic Requirements, January Cost. Analysis Group (CAG) Charter, January 4,1984. tic Licensing 10 CFR Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Dome and Related Regulatory Functions." RES to conduct an s of specific The use of the above references should make it i lemaking. rulemakings commensurate with the current stage of the ru
~
2.1.5 What RES Will Independently Review basis as com-Each sponsoring office is responsible for t with the current assembling on a tim plate a rulemaking review package as reasonable, i office 3 commensura months stage of the specific rulemaking. review of ongoing rulemakin before the annual ED0 approval is needed. from the The rulemaking review package will be in fice reviews the form of of a mem
.. Director of the sponsoring office to the E00 transmitting Ofi h th rulemakings, each as a separate enclosure, i forATTN:
wh RAMRB cHowever,for the s EDO review and approval. k ge to the making review package to the RES Mail and Re Cost Analysis Group, ORM, for information. it receives RES will independently review only the rulemaking review pac from a sponsoring office. t tion: The rulemaking review package must contain the following d (1) For new proposed rulemakings:
- The Office Director's memorandum to the EDO.
l: 2-2 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85
- - - _ _ _ ._ _ ___~~________-___---_.-_.
- o
) l A draf t NRC Regulatory Agenda entry (in the OMB Unified d rule Agenda l '
to be included in NUREG-0936, Section 3 " Rules", as an unpublishe l en which the NRC expects to take action. l NOTE: The " Timetable" must contain a scheduled date is the date
)
final act will be within 2 years of its inception (the final action The sponsoring office staf f's recommendation to the EDO concerni
. whether and how to proceed with rulemaking.
The findings of the office screening process tha Screening must consider preliminary the new proposed rulemaking. judgments by the staff concerning: The issue to be addressed, i.e. , the probles to be corrected; the necessity and urgency for addressing the issue;
~
- alternatives to rulemaking; how the issue vill be addressed through rulemaking; how the public, industry, and NRC will be affe exposure, and resources); and c.
NRC resources and scheduling for the rulemaking. - 1 NOTE: This matter must contain preliminary judgments by the concerning whether suffielent resources are available to fina rulemaking within about 2 years of its inception.- A copy of. the preliminary regulatory analysis or anydother un documents, including current draft of ANPRM tification and screening of the candidate for rulemaking. Any summary sheet, form, or other documen
' the E00) to assist in their review of the new proposed rulemakin (2) For ongoing rulemakings: *
- The Office Director's memorandum to the EDO.
NOTE: In the memorandum, the Office Director will either (a) d specify each rule is on schedule, (b) note that the schedule has slipped the action being taken to get it back on schedu target date for final action on the rule. 2-3 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85 1
-' . . . . e
, , .u- - , ,.,,w ,e a ,,w-,e
i l.. . The NRC Regulatory Agenda entry updated to give a clear indicat the current status and timetable of the rule. The rulemaking as it is currently draf ted to be published in the Federal Register. The sponsoring office staff's recommendation to the E00 concerning The recomunendation whether and how to continue with the rulemaking.and ba self contained. The results of the sponsoring office review that, as a minimum, con the following matters: i The issue to be addressed, i.e. , the problem to be corrected; I the necessity and urgency for addressing the issue;
- alternatives to rulemaking;
~
how the issue will be addressed through rulemaking; how the public, industry, and NRC will be affected as a result of rulemaking, including benefits and costs (risk, occupational exposure, and resources); and NRC resources and scheduling needed for the rulemaking. NOTE: This matter must contain the staff judgment of the month and year that the rulemaking will .neet the final action date an intermediate milestones for the current phase of the rulemaking. A copy of each Commission paper, regulatory analysis, CRGR t pa previously published ANPRM, proposed rule, or other underl i
, relied gon by the sponsoring office in conducting its office rev ew. ~
the Any summary sheet, form, or other documenta EDO) to assist in their review of the rulemaking. I d 2.2 RES Independent Review Procedures 2.2.1 Initiation of RES' Independent Review Receipt of Rulemakings from Sponsoring Office 2.2.1.1 ing The RES procedures for independent review office. l t iew The Mail and Records Section will use estab i In-is package and refer the rulemaking review packa underway for a rulemaking review package. 2-4 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85
- - - . - - _ . . _ .w%
en,,
.-r- -- - - , , . - , , . , , - , . . - - . - . , -
-,.r. - , . , , - - - , , , , , - . , . - - - _ . . . . - - ---- -'
e 2.2.1.2 Independent Review of Scheduling Uoon receipt of a rulemaking review package from to the EDO as. appropriate. Only reconnendations where EDO attention is needed will be draf DRAD, RES, will prepare the draf t recommendations in the form of a and will add the paragraph to the rulemaking review package so that the Task Leader responsible for conducting the RES coed with the specific rulemaking. 2.2.1.3 Assignment of Rulemakings to RES Staff The Regulatory Analysis and Materials Risk Branch (RAMRB) DRAD provide staff support and act as coordinator of RES independent rulemakings. RAMRS, in accordance with established procedures, after reviewing its fo of the rulemaking review package, will assign each enclosed rulemak accompanying documentation to an appropriate RES Division for action. The responsible RES Division Director distributes the rulemaking Branch with panying documentation to the appropriate Branch C The Branch Chief assigns the rulemaking with ac draf t independent review package. 2.2.1.4 Actions by Respor:sible RES Task Leader The RES Task Leader assigned a rulemaking for action will i revie rulemaking and its accompanying documentation, collect additional h i l * - as needed, coordinate with other RES staff, non-RES staff, and th j office sponsoring the specific rulemaking, app
- to the Section Leader /Branen Chief of the Task Leader's br
,i (1) Review process ll The RES Task Leader will conduct a written quality con-idelines Staff review process. f.I l ~ trol evaluation, i.e. , staff compliance with l king the pro emphasis on compliance with CRGR Charter requirements for any ru e confirmed as a generic requirement, to be imposed by the NRC ~, more classes of power reactors. The evaluation will include, to the extent informa*. ion is avc11abl consideration of: i.e. , the ;wooles to be corrected;
- The issue to be addressed 2-5 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85
- the necessity and urgency for addressing the issue;
- alternatives to rulemaking;
- how the issue will be addressed through rulemaking; how the public, industry, and NRC will be affected as a result of rule-making, including benefits and costs (risk, occupational exposure, and resources); and 4
- NRC resources and scheduling needed for the rulemaking.
The RES Task Leader must make preliminary judgments in writing on all six m or other factors that are available at the current stage This is the second part of the RES staff review. The need The RES Task Leader will develop written preliminary judgments on: for the rulemaking; consistency of the rulemaking This is the third part of the RES staff review. ing the NRC's mandate. Based on the written results of the three part RES Drafting recommendation. staff review, the RES Task Leader prepares as a separate item a written dr recommendation (and the basis for the recommendation) concerning w
- proceed with the specific rulemaking.the recommendation must be f
i This item is the source document for the standard recoupendation and th ,
, for the reconnendation (in bullet form),in the memora review.
. (2) Contents of draft independent review package.
In recognition that RES independent reviews may be conducted on a wide of rulemakings that are in various stages of develop available at the current stage of the rulemaking. As a minimum, the draft independent review package should contain: A memorandum RES to ED0 (see Section 2.4) typed in final that 1ac RES Task Leader's recommendation, the bas appropriate. A copy of the rulemaking if available with its a review package. 2-6 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85 yg = -wg- - ------- ev.r---+------,-y--y --re-m---- -,gs---cm---- # y ,, -yn- -----,--y -ww--,,w- - - - - - -- - -- - -
-4 Any additional papers or other underlying staf f documents relied on by the RES 1ask Leader to support the draf t independent review.
RES Task Leader recommendation concerning whether to proceed with the This recessnendation must be supported by the results specific rulemaking. of the three-part RES staff review.
- The three part RES staff review.
The responsible RES Task Leader will also include in the draf t indepenocnt review package any summary sheet, form, or other documentation requested by RES, OEDO, and others (involved in control of MRC rulemaking by offices report-ing to the E00) to assist in their review of the rulemaking. 2.2.1.5 RES Management Review of Draft Independent Review Package ~ (1) RES Branch Chief evaluates the draft independent review package, causes upgrading as appropriate, concurs in memorandum RES to EDO thati facludes
.the RES Task Leader recommendation (supported by the results of the rev ew by RES Task Leader) and submits Branch package to respective Division Director.
(2) Division Director reviews the draft independent review package, causes upgrading as appropriate, concurs in and transmits Division package to
- RAMRB for further RES action.
- 2.2.2 Deliberations of RES Independent Review'8 card 2.2.2.1. Establishment of RIRB The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research has determined that the function of RES' independent review of rulemakings can best be c ages prepared by RES staff and recommend to the Director, RES, whether to -
coed with the specific rulemakings. The RIRB will develop means for provid'ing to the Director, RES, the results o RES independent reviews that are balanced and rela The RIRB members will commit sufficient time and re to meet established schedules for RES independent. reviews of rulemakings. (1) Membership of RIRB The RIRB will consist of the Director or Deputy Director of each Division RES. The Division representative may abstain from any RIRB deliberation in wh RES Division may have a conflict of interest. 2-7 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85 ,
)
l l
~
(2) Chairman of RIRB The RIRB will be chaired by the Director, Division of R for the RES independent review of any specific rulemaking. (3) Staff 5spport The Regulatory Analysis and Materials Risk Branch (RAMRB), Division of R ysis and Operations, RES, will provide staff support to the RIRB, the Directo RES, and other RES staff concerning RES independent reviews of rulemakings. (4) Mon-RES Support The RIRB may consult with any of the several non-RES branches and groups in special areas such as cost analysis, information man 2.2.2.2 RIR8 Scope The RIRB will consider only rulemaking review packages received from The rulemakings are spon-(1) soring office directors or RES division directors. categorized as follows:
- Unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action, including l
petitions for rulemaking after the sponsoring office d
- Advance notices of proposed rulemaking;
- proposed rules; j
- Final rules; and Withdrawals of petition.for rulemaking or rulemaking notices destined to be published in the " Rules and Regulations" or " Proposed Rules" sec of the Federal Register.
Secause RES independent reviews fall into two categories, the RIR8 wil (2) deliberate against two sets of criteria:
- Review to begin new proposed rulemakings A review of a new proposed rulemaking must necessa lying staff documents supporting the rulemaking.
The review, to the extent information is available,'will be an evalua against the following factors:
- Evaluation of the preliminary judgments by the sponsoring office staff and/or the RES Task Leader on the matters identified Section 2.2.1.4(1).
2-8 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85'
~.
accom-Consideration of the rulemaking's importance relative to p11shing the NRC's mandate. it t Determination that the new proposed rulemaking is cons s e with applicable policies and planning guidance. final y l Judgment on the probability that the NRC will t 2 years.of complete ; action on the new proposed rulemaking within abou _ , its inception. Annual review of ongoing rulemakings intervals, it will Because the annual review will be conducted at regulartified abo emphasize the incremental changes in the factors idenf the rule tion to incremental changes in the current stage o going review. . uch as final The annual review will take into account external events sd plan actions on other rules, new legislation, fnew researchpolicy studies, an ance, and new information including the findings o that affact the rulemaking subject to review. thing In essence, the annual review answersthe the previous question, "Has a occurred to change the rulemaking and therefore that is, a new changefic ongoi RES independent recommendation concerning i tinue with the speci
._ making?" and results in an appropriate modifica
the specific rulemaking.
RIRB Operations Procedures 2.2.2.3 (1) RAMRB Staff Review d package for ade-RAMRB staff will review each If the Division package is not package sufficientor ible RES division with forTask RIRBLeaconsie quacy (see Section 2.1.1.3). eration, RAMRB will return the package to the i couldresponsRAMRB affect the sched- n reasons for the return.but will inform tions. ule for RES independent reviews. i RIRB membe RAMRB will schedule an accepted package IRB Chairman. for RIRB del b Scheduling priorities will be at the discretiond voting i of the R RAMRB staff normally will provide a brief RIRB members summary for anal sheet, if appropriate, with each accepted package to RIRB deliberations. i additional RAMRB staff may, at the request of ilable anycommensurate RIRB member, ob information, to the extent the informationl is avaking, ent, regulatoryfrom non-R with the current stage of the particular ru ema and. timing of with respect to cost analysis, information managem flexibility analysis, and other aspects of the importance specific rulemakings for use in RIRB deliberations. 2-9 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85
~~
(2) RIRB Deliberations factors In keeping with the wide range of complexity, two levels: impacts, benefits, in characterizing rulemakings, the RIRB will conduct deliberations a In the case of rulemakings where there is a consensus at the, e stages of RES independent review, RIRB members ting the will evaluate accepted packages and provide RAMRB with voting sheets indica RIRB member's position on the specific rulemaking. , In other cases, the RIRB Chairman will direct dd and RAMRB to sche l 1 to be attended by RIR8 members, RES Staf f, non-RES staff, as nee I staff members of the sponsoring office, if appropriate, by RIRB to l comments and questions. , a reasonable amount of time for discussion of each members. I summarize the member's position on the specific rulemaking. ff members of sponsoring offices the
. All RIRB requests for briefings by staor other non-RES br direction of the RIRB chairman.
(3) Results of RIRB Deliberations RIRB delibera-RAMRB will prepare a separate package documenting the results tions for each specific rulemaking. . The package will contain: h The memorandum making reconnendations to the EDO as rec sponsoring office directors. l l' The Division package or Task Leader package as prepared RES staff and amended by RIR8, as appropriate. The voting sheets or the positions of RIRB members as sam the meeting. i The memorandum RES to EDO containing the RES indepe i d (if and an accurate description of the basis for the recommendat ling as needed) the paragraph on recommendations to the EDO on sc appropriate. nse Upon concurrence by the Chairman, RIRB, RAMRB the Direc-holds t ning item and submits to the Office of Director, endation to the RE whether to proceed with the specific rulemaking and the recoup EDO on scheduling as appropriate. 2-10 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/06/85
2.2.3 RE5 Independent Recommendations to EDO 2.2.3.1 Director's Review The Director, RES, considers the memorandum RES to EDO and, if deemed appro causes upgrading of the draf t independent recommendation and/or basis for the recommendation. 2.2.3.2 RES Independent Recommendation The Director, RES, makes an independent recommendation to the EDO as follows: For the ED0's review to begin new proposed rulemaking, whether to proceed (1) with the proposed rulemaking and, if appropriate, whether EDO action is needed to ensure that the rule will be finalized within about 2 years of its inception. ' For the E00's annual review, whether to continue with the ongoing rulemaking (2) and, if appropriate, whether EDO action is needed to get the rulemaking
.back on schedule, ifhen the Director, RES, signs the memorandum RES to E00 the (upgraded) draf t
- recommendat, ion becomes the RES independent recommendation.
The RES independent recommendation must be supported by the results of the R independent review (i.e., the draft RES independent redew as modified, if appropriate). 2.2.3.3 Dating RES Memorandum
~
The Office of the Director, RES, returns the signed memorandum RES to EDO to RAMRB for date, dispatch, and distribution. 2.2.3.4 Distribution of RES Memorandue RAMRB causes distribution of the official record copy RES management that the complete RES independent review package has been dispatched. , 2.2.3.5 Dispatch of RES Memorandum RAMRB dispatches the memorandum RES to EDO to Margo Bridgers, Chie ' RAMRB also dispatches the complete RES review package (copy of mem to EDO plus RES review package) to DEDO (Attention:A fourth copy of the comple Director, User Office, and to CAG. package is placed in RAMRB's file of rulemaking for RES independent I RAMRB dispatches a copy of the memorandum RES to ED0 plus a copy of Regulatory Agenda entry to J. Philips, Chief, RPB, ADM, for information. :
- l. !
2-11 NU/BR-0094 CH 2 09/D6/85
~ 2.2.4 Recordkeeping System 2.2.4.1 RES Mail Controls The Mail and Records Section RES, will use established procedures to receive, record, and distribute for action all rulemaking review packages RES receives from sponsoring offices for RES' independent review. 2.2.4.2 RES Archival System RAMRB will establish an archival system for keeping records of each rulemaking including assignments of rulemaking within RES for independent review, actions by responsible RES staff, the RES independent review package, results of RIRB deliberations, and independent reconnendations made by the Director, RES, to EDO concerning whether to proceed with rulemakings, and approvals by the EDO.
- 2. 3' Illustration of E00 Review and Approval process 2.3.1 Introduction The attached chart is a schematic representation of how the EDO reviews and approves rulemaking by offices reporting to the 100.
Each calendar year, ongoing rulemakings must be reviewed and approved by the EDO concerning whether and how they should be continued. As a separate action, when an of fice director decides that new proposed rule-saking should begin, the director must make recommendations to the EDO and see - his review and approval. All office director recommendations with supporting decimentation are dispatched to RES for independent review. The chart shows that the RES independent reviews and independent recommendat are an advisory staff function concerning the ED0's review and approv posed and ongoing rulemakings.DEDROGR) the office director etcosmandations and the to the OEDO (Attention: RES independent recommendations with supporting documentation. Only rulemakings that are approved by the EDO may be included in the MRC In addition, tory Agenda (MUREG-0936), which is updated and publis Agenda. . 9 2-12 NU/BR-D094 CH 2 09/06/85
- O 2.3.2 Schematic of 100 Review and Approval Process Annual Review of Ongoing Ru1 making Seginning New Proposed Rulemaking ,
1 p RC Regu al tory Agenda l1 I5 tart ] .
~
l Vol . X. No. I h Screening of candidate I RE5 Merno to Uffice Director 1 I ifor Rul maH nc < r 9 r I 5 tart Annual Review ] fice Director Decides that '
. Rulemakint Should Benin 1 Annual Office v Review 1 5r I _
" Office Director Makes I User Office I
, Recamendations ,
i sf 1 ponsoring . IRES Independent Review ] Office Director Makes
~
Recomendations 20 Working 9 - Days I RE5 Indepencent Review I
%f 20
" RE5 Independent .
rRES Independent Working . ' Recomendations_ Recomendations by sM Office Director REs Independent 3 5 Independent' l , < Recomendations ) i Recomendations Recomendations V and
- v. '
OEDO Office Director I E J0; (DEDROGR)I
. 1 1 Recomendations f i >
l
- r_ '
"IDO Reviews and I EJJO i OE.DO cE R>
Approves to leeinE .
- s 4 s $ r _
EAdd to Current I
' [ EDO Reviews l
to and 1 MRC Regulatory Acenda j I Approves Continue I f l
~
s f @ _ ' " Resource Expenditures l 1 1 May Begin j g Include ini NRC Regulatory Agenda ] s
Resource Expend 1thise
; May Continue 2-13
,. - - , - - - - , - --,,--m , , - ,- $1--
- O I
2.4 $ ample Forest f or Memo RE5 to EDO MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Circks Executive Director for Operations Robet t 5. Minogue Otrector FROM: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF RRC RULEMAKING: ' (ONGOING OR NEW PROPOSED) RULEMAKING SPONSO
- (5YMBOL OF SPONSORING OFFICE) f Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, "[Name of Rulemak sored by [ symbol of sponsoring office), RES (recommendation).
The basis for our recommendation is as follows:
- [Use bullets to list one or more reasons ghy the three part RES s review supports the RES independent Recommendation.]
the Commission's mandates to protect
- [The reasons any be related to:
the health and safety of the public..special nuclear material and - ( facilities, and the environment; policy and planning guidhnce; and Commission- or legislative-sandated rulemakings.] L (If ORAD, RES, provides a paragraph making recommendations f uling as appropriate, insert the paragraph at this point.) i
! The complete RES independent' review package has been sent to
[ Optional) This DEDROGR) and to the Director, [ symbol of sponsoring office). package includes some suggested wording changes in the rulema 2-14 MU/5R-0094 CH 2 09/06/85 t
. _ , . _ _ . _ ~ - _ .
- a
= .
~.
which we believe will improve the quality of the supporting documentation for the proposal. Robert S. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution: RLS Central Files Circ /Chron Branch r/f RMinogue Dross FGillespie, Chaivsan, RIRB
~
RES Division Director ' RES Branch Chief " RES Task Leader . RAMRB
.3 .
+
r (i (! It CWW:RIRB DOIR:RES DIR:RES Branch:RES Dir: Division Minogue ! Branch:RES Gillespie Ross l~ Task Leader tranch Chief Div. Director l d e. 2-15 NU/5R-0094 CH 2 09/06/8L
-m. - , . -
r- -
._w -_.-.
9--. - - , ,-,_,,-m..- ,
4 . [759b vi; 1 l water during the active life of the facility. The licensee or applicant , would be required during closure of the facility to remove or decentaminate all waste residues (e.g., tailings), contaminated impoundment components l (e.g., liners, embankments), contaminated sofis and geologic media, anc 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 ll 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 i exceeds the cost of synthetic liner installation. Use of impoundments for tailings storage appears even less-likely considering additional costs for the alternative including disposal site preparation costs; design, testing, and installation costs for liners; and costs for dewatering the tailings so they can be relocated to a disposal site. Criterion SA(3) provides the applicant or licensee with an opportunity for another exemption from the synthetic liner requirement if the applicant or licensee can demonstrate to the Commission that a combination of design,. . ] operation, and site characteristics prevents migration of hazardous constituents into ground water or surface water at any future time. This demonstration-should consider such . factors.as .the nature and. quantity of wastes, alternata design features and operation practices,.hydrogeologic site characteristics, and other factors that could influence the quality 35 3
-n, e e oa
. _ _ _ ._ . - _ - - - - - , _ - _ . - - _ . - _ - - - - - - - - - . _ - .e
m .
. [7'90-01]
5 of leachate and mcbility of hazardous constituents. Liners made of clay or other natural materials may be an integral part of the design considerations under the flexibility provided by paragraph SA(3). Costs incurred in successfully demonstrating the exemption will vary based on the relative importance and type of site characteristics, design features, and operation practices. For example, a successful demonstration based primarily on site characteristics may only require additional collection of site characterization information to supplement information contained in environmental assessments and licensing evaluations pursuant
.to Criterion 5G(2). The incremental cost in this case would be limited to the' additional costs of collecting more-detailed hydrogeologic information (e.g., aquifer tests analyses, ground-water monitoring results, stratigraphic data). In contrast, a demonstration may be based primarily on appropriate operational practices such as drying the tailings with cyclones or belt filters. The cost of this alternative would be the capital costs of necessary equipment and structures, as well as the maintenance and operational costs associated with the equipment and structures. The
~
costs of clay, admixed, or asphalt liners are estimated in Table 1.
~
f' t i Because of the diversity of potential alternatives to synthetic liner installation, the costs of the alternatives are expected to vary from less than to greater than the costs of synthetic liners as described in Table 1. The potential benefits gained from the exemption are essentially
. equivalent to potential benefits associated with synthetic liner < installation, namely protection of ground water and surface water quality.
This benefit may be realized by humans living near uranium processing facilitier end 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 1- - -- -.- - . . - _ . .
. _=
. e.
[7590-01] of new control and operation technologies for environmental protection at uranium processing facilities. Successful applications could benefit ) 1 other programs for radiological and non-radiological waste management. l l
- 3. Ground water Monitorinc 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 arid 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 urantim 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 complianerwith 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
Q .4... 4 . e-
. [7590-01]
i . Il j liner requirement, requesting alternate concentration limits, or selecting corrective actions for grounewater contamination. Based on unit costs for monitoring wells in the United States, the initial cost for installing 4 30 sha110w.(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 4 organic indicator parameters would be expect'ed 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., I 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.
1 f
- 4. Alternate Concentration Limits Today's proposed amendments provide licensees with flexibility in t
developing site-specific ground-water protection standards that incorporate alternate concentration limits in lieu of background concentration limits or the limits listed in Criterion 5C. The .Cosumission say 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 concentraticn does not exceed this alternate limit at the point of compliance.
~
The costs associated with applications for alternate concentration limits will vary based on site-specific factors that determine information needs for the demonstration. Information needed to support applications for alternate liatts would draw heavily on information contained in environ-mental repopts and license applications. Because detailed site information i is an existing requinnent (see criterion SG), justifications. for alternate . concentration limits should only need to be supplemented with information I 38 I l ~--....-.J.--...- - -- ._.- --_-_-_ , _ . - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - -
n
#SSV/ pm PPK
, . Federal Regi:ter / Vol 51 No.130 / Tuesday, luly 8.1966 / Pmposed Rules 24697 , -
i main post offices of Fort Wayne. South ACTION: Proposed rule. D. Implementation >.i l Bend or Valparaiso. Indiana, and shall F. Relationship to Other Existing or ~a be 2.0 cents for each 10 miles of fraction summary:The Nuclear Regulatory Proposed NRC Reqwsrements.10 CFR thereof from such point plus the amount Commission (NRC)is proposing to Part 40 , of thelocation adjustment pu amend its regulations govemmg the X. paperwork Reductma Act Statement .: - , piragraph (a)(1) oi this secta. on rsuant to disposal of uranium mill tailings. The , E Regulate FleMty Cert 6cahon r osed changes .ntend d to X11 List of Subjects in to CFR Part 40 upplicable at the respective point. XIIL Proposed Modifications , regulations the ground. water pmtection I. Background - PART 1050--MILK IN THE CENTRA 1. regulations published by the ~ Environmental Protection Agency (epa) The Nuclcar Regulatory Commission ILLINOIS MARKETING AREA for these wastes.This action is being (NRC or Commission)is proposing .
- 1. In i 1050.52, paragraphs (a) and (b) taken to comply with the mandate in the additiona; modificat2ons to its . < _
f are revised to read as follows: Uranium Mill Taihngs Radiation Control '
, p, Act and the NRC Authorization Act for confor ng em og er ly applicable FY 1983 to conform the NRC regulations requirements promulgated by the handlers. -
t e standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).' (a) The Class I price for producer milk The EPA requirements contained in at a plant located outside the State of
- Subparts D and E af 40 CFR Part 192 (48 ,
.llinois or in the State of Illinois but DATE:The comment period expires on September 8,1966. Comments received FR 45926: October 7.1983) apply to the ;
north of the northemmost boundaries of management of uranium and thorium the counties of Mercer,llenry Bureau. after this date will be considered ifit is byproduct material and brame .. "a La Salle. Grundy, and Kankakee shall be practical to do so but assurance of effective for NRC and Agreement State ', reduced to cents if such plant is 50 miles consideration may not be given except licensees and Imsnw applicants an , , or more from the City Itallin Peoria, f r comments received on or before this December 6.1983. This proposed action Illinois, plus an additional 24 cents for date. ' would modify existing regulations of the , arch 10 miles or fraction thereof that AcoREss: Mail concments to Secretary. Commission to incorporate the EPA - j such distance exceeds 60 miles. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ground. water protection requirements g Distances applied pursuant to this Washington. DC 20555, Attention: ' found in 40 CFR Part 192.The affected
. paragraph shall be the shortest'hard. ' Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver Commission regulations are contained'y i * -
surfaced highway distances as comments to Room 1121,1717 H Street in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. which' ' drtermined by the market administrator NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 am was promulgated in final form on from the latest Mileage Guide as and 5:00 pm weekdays. Comments October 3,1080 (45 FR 65521) and 'M, - published by the flousehold Goods received on the Advance Notice of amended on October 16,1985 (50 FR Czrrier's Bureau. Proposed Rulemaking may be examined 41852) to conform to the provisions of (b) For nurposes of calculating such at the Commission's Public Docket the EPA standards affecting matters cdjustment, bulk transfers between pool Room,1717 H Street NW., Washington. other than ground-water protection, plants shall be assigned Class I DC between 8:15 am and 5:00 pm EPA developed and issued its , disposit6n at the transferee plant only weekdays. regulations pursuant to section 275b.of , o the extent that 105 percent of Class i FOR FURYHER WFORMATION CONTACT: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as disposition at the transferee plant Robert Fonner. Office of the Executive amended (AEA) [42 U.S.C. 2022); section exceeds the sum of receipts at such Legal Director, telephone (301) 492-8692, 275b was added by section 206 of Pub.L plant from producers and cooperative or Kitty S. Dragonette Division of 95-6&l. the Uranium Mill Tailings , l associations pursuant to i 1050.9(c). and Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Radiation Control Act of1978 the volume assigned as Class I to Regulatory Commission. Washington, (UMTRCA). These EPA regulations receipts from other order plants and DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4300. included, by cross. reference, certain unregulated'sopply plants, such SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATIO'C regulations issued by EPA under the assignment to be made first to transferor L Background Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). plants at which no location adjustment IL Overview of Comments in Response to Under sectio t.18(a) of Pub. L 97-415, the credit is applicable and then in - ANPRM Nuclear Regulatory Commission sequence beginning with the plant at fit Summary of Comments on Specific Issues Authorization Act for fiscal years 1962 which the least location adjustment Listed in ANPRM and 1983. the Commission was directed would apply. IV. Issues P eviously Resolved to conform its regulations to EPA's with
. . . . . V. Commission Authonty and Responutnhty notice and cpportunity for public il comment. Comments are requested on lFR Doc. 86-14897 Filed 7-7-a6: 8.45 aml rdination th EPA choices and decisions the NRC must j
stuiso coot suo-es.es Vill. Content of this Proposal 3 make concermnq issues and actions that IX Impact of the Proposed Amendments and f - - ' - - Regulatory Analysis Considerations are within its discretion. Comments on ,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY A Fmdina of No Sigmficant Emironmental the bati:c v41ue, validity, lawfulness, or tmpact COMMISSION appr priateness of EPA s SWDA , B Cos's and Benefits of the Modifications regu ations are not requested.
- 1. Synthetic Liners I3 10 CFR Part 40
- 2. Atternatnes to synthetic Liners II. Oversiew of Comments in Responso Y
- 3. Ground water Monitoring to ANPRM Ur:nium Mill Tallings Regulations: 4. Alternate Concentration Limits 4
, Ground Water Protection and Other 5. Closure The additional action that the g issues 6. Correctae Actions for Cround. Water Commission might take to amend its mill Contamination tailings regulations for ground. water 3 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 1 C. Impacts on Other Requirements and protection was the subject of an lj Commission. Persons Advance Notice of Proposed e
.5 A ' l ' '? O p l y { ,x h;9 L!
m g y. ' q lMA G. asl.' TW
- _1_A_ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ %
s
. 54698 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules Rulemaking (ANPRht) published for independent new rulemaking that sense for application to tailings.
comment on November 26.1984 (49 FR balances risks and costs and that ik Flexibility is a paramount concern. 4M25). The comment period on the EPA standards are flawed on Yhmcai Issue (3/: What should be included in ANPRM originally expired on January and jurisdictional grounds. New NRC a listing of hazardous constituents for 25,1985 but was extended until h1 arch 1. regulations advocated by industry mill tailings to replace the 375. item-long 1985 (50 FR 2293; January 16.1985). Four would retain the aquifer use standards list in Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 environmental groups, six industrial and include generic alterative referenced in 40 CFR 2M.93? Should representatives, four states, and two requirements and flexibility rather than constituents not usually present or not Federal agencies responded. Copies of relying solely on licensee developed present above trace levels be included? the responses and a staff analysis of the alternatives to provide flexibility and What criteria should be applied to comments received are available in the potentially more cost effective solutions. decide what constituents should be NRC's Public Document Room. One environmental group suggested included? The ANPRh1 described NRC's that NRC develop comprehensive new hiost commenters addressing this tentative approach for the ground. water requirements including vadose protection modifications. Comments issue advocated an abbreviated list that (unsaturated) zone monitoring and use reflects the hazardous constituents of-generally addressed this approach. Ten the SWDA requirements only as a specific issues were listtd in the acern in taigings. Comments baseline. EPA. one state, and the , ANPRM for comment and commenters environmental commenters repeated ac n w ge sat hazap c nMuents ccncern wMe s,e addressed each of ten issues. concerns about the delayed specific. A trace amount approach for Commenters also repeated or referenced conformance and urged prompt action. ., hazardous constituents was suggested issues raised in comments submitted on States concurred in the approach to the proposed rule for conforming to - by a number of comments. Industry develop a unified set of regulations that suggested that NRC davelop a generic standards other than those pertaining to can stand alone without cross-ground. water protection (40 FR 46418: !!st of hazardous constituents relevant to references to 40 CFR Part 284. tailings and set concentration limits for November 24.1984). These comments ^ pr ded f tl were addressed in the final rulemaking each based on health and environmental p hed* und e otect on eUects of eacWe herse nabre oMe
, (50 FR 41852. October 18.1985).The Strategy" and suggested that this issues associated with this proposed document be considered in developing comments guggested,that decisions on rule are presented under topics IV health effects from hazardour -
additional requirements, particularly on constituents will be controversial through VIII. Because of the natare of the comments, the Commission was able levels of ground. water cleanup. because of the lack of precision in to respond to issues rather than III. Summary of Comments on Specific estimating health effects from individual comments. Issues Listedin ANPRM nonradiological materials. Some of the comments were helpfulin Public comment was requested on ten EPA pointed out the provision in 40 the decision on scope of rulemaking. specific issues or questions. CFR 264.93(b) to exclude hazardous Some were usefulin clarifying or Commenters were asked to provide the constituents but cautioned that a generic emphasizing points in drafting the basis in fact for any opinions offered or waiver could require a very difficult proposed amendments.Others wdl be assertions made. In the following demonstration. EPA emphasized the site useful as the Commission continues t specific flexibility provided by the discussion. each issue is repeated and implement the regulations and develop provisions that hazardous constituents an overview of issues raised in or modify guidance, documents. comments is given are those that have been detected in Issue 01: Should the SWDA. groundwater underlying a regulated unit de nYe n th ANP in luded comparable requirements to be placed and that are reasonably expected to be consolidating all SWDA related requirements, eliminating cross. in NRC regulations be explicitly restated in or derived from the waste.The l references to EPA standards. including to precisely duplicate EPA's language, or second test can take mto account the should substantive requiren ents be site specific ore composition, operating I all 40 CFR provisions already imposed history, and teachate data. L by EPA (40 CFR 264.92-94. 2M100, paraphrased? 2f,1.11L and 264.221) and considering all Most commenters addressing this Issue 4:The NRC must estabhsh other provisions of 40 CFR Part 264 point supported paraphrasing. One state SWDA-comparable requirements to the listed in the preamble to 40 CFR Part urged maximum comparabihty with the maximum extent practicable. In this 192. All categories of commenters EPA standards on both procedural and context, what is practicable given i addressed the general or overall substantive aspects. EPA urged current practice and the current state of I approach NRC should take. restatement except where technology? l Industry commenters urged NRC to administratively inappropriate. Industry noted that the weight loading revise substantially the SWDA Issue /21: Should all of Subpart F be and hydraulic head in a tailings requirements to reilect the differences included? What should not be included? impoundment means that some seepage , betwcen tailings and other hazardous Industry suggested that Subpart F be is hkely over the long term. Industry g ( wastes and the isolated location of most changed in varying degrees ta also challenged the practicality of the 'p ' l ta:Imgs sites. Industry commenters also accommodate the differences between liner requirement based on cost. on lincr emphasized that tailings more closely tailings and hazardous waste. EPA an instabihty when installed over large resemble mining wastes and that wastes environmental group, and one state areas. and on creation of a " bathtub from other parts of the mining industry advocated incorporating all of Subpart effect" which requires actis e have not been subjected to the F. Others suggested including all , maintenance of a leachate collection hazardous waste rules in 40 CFR Part substantive parts of Subpart F. Based on system. Industry pointed out the 264 Industry repeated and referenced comments by all categories of practical problem with artificially arguments raised on the corrpanion commenters, whatever text is developed dewatering tailings, particularly the 1 NRC rulemaking that NRC should reject for insertion in NRC regulations needs slimes, and the cross. purpose posed by 7
^
the EPA standards and undertake an to make sense in general and make the requirement for essentially li i f. _________ __ ._m
a.. Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules 24699 immediate emplacement of thick covers Industry noted that the 30-year post- sampiing, but the consensus in the which wauld inhibit natural dewatering. closure care period in SWDA standards comments was that the topics listed are One commenter stated that it is conflicts with the UMTRCA provisions more appropriately addressed in practical to establish the for transfer to the government after guidance docurnents. EPA urged that the hydrogeological characteristics and stabilization. Industry also noted that level of detail be at least equivalent to attenuative properties at mill sites and the SWDA requirement for completir.g that of Subpart F but that NRC should to plan, conduct. aod interpret ground- closure in 180 days after operations stop maintain flexibility. EPA acknowledged - water monitoring. Statu stressed the is inconsistent with the need to dewater that implementation of Subpart F importance of the site and impoundment tailings for 5 to 10 years before final involves areas that require further . design and construction and expressed stabilization. Some comments supported research and development reservations about primary reliance on a the basic SWDA scheme and expressed Issue (S):To what extent must the synthetic liner for ground. water. the view that sufficient flexibility exists protection. One state listed three areas NRC provide supporting environmental to deal with site specific problems. Impact analyses considering the nature of questionable practicality: (1) ability to States supported the concept of a post- of the requirements under consideration. monitor all 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix closure phase in order to minimize the some of which have already been - Vill constituents. (2) corrective action to risk that the government agercy imposed by EPA and are effective? If- - restore aquifers, and (3) the detailed providing long-term care would have to information to approve alternate supporting environmental evaluations rectify problems with stabilization, and are needed for SWDA-comparable rule monitoring requirements. EPA'and an urged requirements for post-closure care changes except for the requirements environmental group commented that all that minimized reliance on active ' already imposed by the EPA. should the of the EPA SWDA standards are maintenance. EPA commented that 40 ( practicable. NRC continue to proceed with only a 4 CFR Part 192 already includes two time single rulemaking to establish a 1 Issue (5/:Should NRC retain the basic periods that are different from SWDA . complete set of SWDA-cocaparabia
) sequence embodied in Subpart F where rules and that NRC may need to adopt requirements?
q licensees who detect ground-water different closure and post-closure contamination progress through a periods for tailings. Three commenters recommended a. - graduated scale of action, from /ssue(7/:To what extent how, and single rulemaking. One state nietection monitoring. through reemphasized the.need for prompt NRC - under what conditions should leak - compliance monitoring. and on to detection systems under single-liner action. A state comment expressed the corrective action. with sigmficant time impoundments be allowed to fulfill the view that additional analyses would be delays al! owed between steps while requirements for a detection monitoring a wasted effort because certain of the . I plans and programs are being program that otherwise requires a EPA requirements are "unsupportable." developed. reviewed, and implemented? monitoring wellin the uppermost One industry comment reiterated that Would it be advisable, practicable or . aquifer? NRC must undertake comprehensive ' appropriate to require, for example, that Comments reflected no clear environmental evaluations ofits own. > all NRC licensees have approved An environmental group repeated its ' consensus on this issue but expressep pas t on that conformar.ce coupled with ccmpliance monitoring programs that the view that this issue should be a site are automatically activated and specific decision. One (omment additional rules to be RCRA comparable implemented when needed? mdicated that leak detection systems s a minor effort and of such limited Sn commenters recommended that should fulfill monitoring requirements scope not to constitute a major Federal licensees have compliance monitoring only when site features under the action requiring additional support. epa programs that are automatically impoundment would effectively prevent also e.xpressed the view that minimal activa'ed and implemented. Industry migration to the aquifer. One state addittocal supporting analyses are disagreed. M! categories of commenters questioned the value of a leak detection needed for NRC to issue SWDA-suggested that the basic sequence in system in view of the difficulty of c parable requirements. SubpartMe retained. An repairing leaks under large volumes of Issue (ICJ:Is the f!exibility cited in the environmental group expressed propo:ed addition to the introduction of tailings and expressed concern about concerns that the sequence will allow to creating migration pathways to the Appendix A,10 CFR Part 40, sufficient much time to elapse before corrective aquifer. EPA and an environmental or should the NRC deve!co and support actions are implemented. EPA noted group opposed reliance on leak additional modifications to conform to l that the elements in Subpart F can all be detection systems in place of monitoring the physical stability aspects of the EPA included in the license with automatic because monitoring assures detect:en of standard? triggers to avoid delays. One commenter contaminatten, leak detection systems Commenters other than industry expressed concern about the need to are subject to failure, and their long. reflected a consensus that the cited accommodate the large size of tailings term reliability has not been prosen. flexibility is sufficient. Industry impc.undments in nonitoring programs. Issue (Bh How detailed should NRC's espressed concern about the burden on One commenter noted that development regulations be, and what should and individuallicensees to propose and of contingency plans up front would should not be required in areas such as. defend specific alternatives. States. ; help design for closure and corrective w ell construction, sampling analysis, environmental groups and EPA opposed actmn. One state urged maximum u e of determinations of annual aserage and any modification of the prescriptive ';: esisting monitonng programs. Industry seasonal bacl ground concentrations, requirements in Appendix A. An ' urged flexibility to accommodate site mmimum detection levels. statistical environmental group argued that EPA speafic circumstances. treatment of data and determinations of fully intended that requirernents such as ! Issue fdh Should the basic SWDA statistically significant differences, those in Appendix A beincluded in scheme for the timing and duration of a recordkeeping and reporting. quality tailings programs in order to assure "ccmpliance" period a " closure" period. assurance. etc? compliance with its standards and and a " post closure care" period be Two comments recommended concluded that there is no real maintainedf What modificaHons, i speufying details concerning well - difference in NRC's and EPA's approach , deletmns. additions should be made? construction to assure long. term reliable that warrants any additional changes. i
a 24700 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8.1986 / Proposed Rules IV. Issues Previously Resolved from radiological and nonradiological but only partially fulfills it since grou'nd. - hazards assoicated with such sites. which Is WMer provisions of the EPA standards From the Commission's point of view '' the following issues were resolved in th'e more stnnge Nhan the e hic e were not incorporated. The second ou te mandate in section 84a(3) of the AEA ,s i - first-step rulemaking: achieved by standards and requirements , more general and directs NRC to assure (1) NRC is proceeding with rulemaking adopted and enforced by the Commission for that mill tailings are managed in a and case-by-case implementation and the same purpose an and fir:al standards promuigated by the Administrator of the manner that is comparable with EPA's enforcement of the EPA standards on requirements for management of similar Ennrontrt tal Protection Agency in , the basis that the EPA stancards in 40 hazardous material under SWDA. EPA accordnce with section 275. CFR Part 192 are valid and consistent incorporated some of its SWDA with EPA authority with one exception. The Commission historica*1y has had permitting regulations by reference m, to The exception is the requirement for the authority and responsibility to ts mill tailings standards but left to EPA concurrence on site specific regulate the activities of persons licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of NRC discretion which additional decisions in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and requirements m,ght i be apprornate. (v). 1954. as amended. Consistent with that Alternative approaches for this (2) NRC is not required to undertake a authority and in accordance with rulemaking range from a reference to 40 i completely new independent rulemaking section 84c. of that Act, the Commission CFR Part 192 requirements for ground. to justify existing requirements in has the discretion to review and water protection tedevelopment of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 by the approve site specific alternatives to comprehensive new regulations. addition of requirements to consider standards promulgated by the Commission and by the Administrator of Three specific alternatives were risks and economic costs to section 84a(1)of the AEA or any other the Environmental Protection Agency. In considered for this rulemaking:
- 1. Fulfill the conformance mandate by provisions of UhfTRCA. the exercise of this authority, section 84c. does not require the Commission to referencingin Appendix Aof toCFR ' . ,
(3) NRC can take time needed for the Part 40, the ground. water standards in second step rulemaking without obtain the concurrence of the 40 CFR Part 192. Extensive guidance compromising protection of the public Administrator in any site specific , health and safety and the environment. alternative which satisfies Commission documentation would have to be . (4) NRC can approve site specific requirements for the level of protection prepared to clarify the requirements . , imposed by.the referenced standards in . . alternatives to NRC and EP6 standards for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and SWDA regulations. Development of ', proposed by licensees without EPA discretionary regulations would be concurrence. nonradiological hazards at uranium mill tailings sites. As an example, the deferred. (5) Under section 2740(2) of the AEA. 2. Fulfill the conformance madate by Agreement States are allowed to adopt Commission need not seek concurrence standards which are equivalent to or of the Administratorin case-by-case inserting into 10 CFR Part 40 the clearly nondiscretionary ground-water more stringent than those promulgated determinations of alternative by EPA or NRC. concentration limits and delisting of provisions of the EPA standard hazardous constituents for specific sites. specifically referred to in 40 CFR Part V. Commission Authority and 192. as well as selected and closely It should be understood that the R# bilitI proposed conforming regulations deal related referenced standards. This . A Commission statement on its w th the exercise of the Commission's alternative would eliminate the need to authority and responsibility was refer to two sets of regulations. responsibility and authority under the included in both the proposed rufe Atomic Energy Act of 1954. solely as implementation guidance would still be notice (49 FR 4M18; November L3.1984) needed and developed. but the amount tegards uranium mill tailings sites and needed would be reduced. Development ar.d the ANPRht.The statement have no broader connotation. described the Commission's view of the of discretionary regulations would also The Commission believes that flexibility afforded undar section 84c of licensee proposals for alternatives can be deferred under this alternative. the AEA and NRC authority to make 3. Proceed with development of a new be an important and effective way to independent site specitic decisions.The help deal witb the problems associated part that integrates NRC and EPA notice of final rulemaking (50 FR 41852; with implementing the new EPA regulations. includes discretionary October 16.1985) addressed the issue standards. The Commission expects that details, and responds to the second raised by commenters on the statement mandate for SWDA comparable it may require several years to hat e its and affirmed the statement. No new conforming regulations fully in place. It requirements for conventional mills. - issues were identified in response to the expects to use the flexibility provided Alternative 2 was selected based on ANPRNf.The statement is repeated here by section 84 in the interim to cormider comments on the ANPRNf the state of for the reader's convenience. and approve alternative proposals from the industry. and Commission judgment.
"Section 84c. of the Atomic Energy licensees. Section 84c. provides NRC The current depressed state of the sufficient authority to independently domestic uranium industry and Act states that:
approve alternatives so long as the projections by industry and Department A Licensee may propose alternatnes to of Energy (DOE) on the future state of a specific requirements adopted and enforced Commission can make the required M the industry suggest that NRC should by the Commission under this act. Such determination."
- alternative proposals may take into account limit expenditure of resources for local or regional conditions. includmg VI. Scope of This Proposal rulemaking applicable to licensing of .
N I geology. topography. hydrology and The relevant Federallegislation on new conventional mills.The major uh uranium mill tailings contains two points leading the Commission to this , a n i es a at sf i mm si n mandates. Sections 84a(21 and 275f(3) of conclusion are:(1) poor market ! requirements if the Commission determmes conditions,over-production and foreign that such alternatives will achiese a tesel of the AEA require NRC to conform to the 1 f EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192.The competition have resulted in a large E ' stabilization and containment of the sit?, concerned. and a level of protection for rulemaking published October 16.1985 decrease in domestic uranium f patal.c health, safety, and the ensironment (50 FR 41852) responded to this inandate production. (2) s'ow recovery of the g 3
.l A
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday, july 8,1986 / Proposed Rules 2U01' indus rv is forecast but the timing and differences between the conformed NRC The Commission also notes that EPA de2ree of recosery are uncertain. (3) regulations and the EPA SWDA addressed theissue of EPA concurrence forecasts mdicate littie new facihty standards would pnmarily be in the in its October 7.1983 notice on 40 CFR actmtv for at least five years. (4) lesel of detail and specificity or in Part 192 (see 48 FR 45942). EPA referred solution (in situ) mining may be the aspects that are not necessarily needed to NRCs responsibility under UMTRCA most actise technology in the near-terra, for mill tailings management. Experience to implement EPA's standards and to be and (5) NRC can reassess the need for from site specific implementation can be comparable to EPA requirements for mom comprehensne rulemaking based used to identify areas where similar hazardous materials. EPA on industry and DOE analyses of market clanfication or additional details might indicated that it expected to" . . . insure trends and licensing caseload forecast be needed in NRCs regulations or that NRC's regulations satisfy these and expenence. (These five points are guidance documents. [UMTRCAl admonitions through its discussed in Revision 1 of " Overview of The mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the concurrence role." Specific provisions of the State of the Uranium industry For AEA requires NRC to assure that the SWDA standards were identified as Rulemaking Purposes" dated December. byproduct materialis managed in a incorporated into 40 CFR Part 192 and 1985 which is available in the NRCs manner that " conforms to gener'a l other pronsions were hsted by EPA as . Pubhc Doc iment Room.) The seventy of requirements established by the " relevant." The listed " relevant" the depressed state of the industry was Commission. with the concurrence of the regulations inclu@ prescnptive general < emphasized by the latest DOE annual Administrator, which are, to the requirements for aspects such as data Imdmg on mdustry viabdity. On maximum extent practicable, at least collection and analysis for the various September 26,1985. the Secretary of comparsble to requirements applicable ground-water monitoring programs and Energy informed the President that the to the possession, transfer, and disposal site inspections. EPA expected NRC to uranium industry was not siable. of similar hazardous material regulated incorporate into its conformed rules The poor outicok for domestic by the Administrator under the Solid discretionary general requirements from production means a correspondmg Waste Disposal Act as amended."He the listed " relevant" regulations. %us. downturn in new facihty licensing mandate has no specific deadline and EPA expected to concur in these general I activity. in the absence oflicense represents a continuing NRC requirements.However.none of the
.spplications for new conventipnal responsibility to be sure that the overall general requirements from the listed -
uramum mdis. the regulatcry focus will . uranium recovery reguls tory fr'a mework "selevant" regulations are proposed for be on interim stabihzation. is comparable to EPA rules for similar incorporation in this proposed rule. 4' decommissiomng, and reclamation of hazardous material.The Commission mill tailings site!i no longer in ope' ration. believes that the combination of Vill. Content of This Proposal - In the application of the ground water conformed regulations, policy and The EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part provisions of 40 CFR Part 192 to existing guidance, and license conditions can 192 (48 FR 45926) included. by cross-sites. site specific decisions will adequately meet this mandate for the reference, ground-water protection predominate. These site specific foreseeable future. Further, the standards in 40 CFR Part 264. Part 264 decisions would not likely benefit Commission anticipates that EPA will was promulgated by the EPA pursuant greatly from generic rulemaking. address the important issue of to authority provided by the Resource - Alternative 2 also minimizes use of protection of ground-water with respect Conservation and Recovery Act NRC resources until EPA issues to mineral ore processing wastes. The (RCRA), which amended the SWDA. standards applicable to other mining nonradioactive constituents in uranium Part 264 itself contains references to and milling wastes. As discussed later mill process wastes appear to be more other EPA rules and a number of in this section and under Topic Vill. comparable to the hazards in such other nternal cross references. Determining some of these wastes are currently not ores than to the chemical process what provisions EPA actually imposed considered hazardous by EPA. Future wastes to which the SWDA rules was thus not a completely EPA stamlards for these wastes might primarily apply. straightforward exercise. In deciding the include prescriptive features that NRC precise language to incorporate, the Vll. Coordination With EPA would consider appropriate to apply to Commission generally had the following mdl taihngs. Liner and corrective action The action proposed in this no' ice is objectives: technology for mming wastes can undertaken pursuant to sections Ma(2)
- 1. Preserve the traditional EPA and mature. and future rulemaking could and 275ff 3) of the AEA and reflects NRC roles in which EPA issues general draw on the experience resulting from requirements already imposed by EPA. standards and NRC conducts the site =reofic application of the general and already subject to implementation detailed implementation and requnements already imposed. The and enforcement by NRC under section enforcement prgrun difficult climate for consensus because 275d of the AEA. .
ef disergent siews and lack of data on For the reasons discussed in the 2. {ncorporate ce.ly those imposed risks and health effects related to presious section, the Commission pr visi ns where NRC has no legal , ; discretion to deviale on a generic basis. hazardous constituents may dimmish as considers it inappropriate to consider ! EPA develops and issues additional this rulemakmg as requiring EPA 3. Provide maximum flexibility to quantitative standards. Although the concurrence under sectior. 34a(3) of the implement the standards in guidance potential for deferred rulemaking would AEA. The EPA has not yet promulgated and site specific licensmg decisions. still exist under Alternative 2. it would standards for "sim lar hazardous 4. Develop a NRC regulation that is redute the near-term uncertainty. material" (i.e. mineral ore processing self-contained without references to Further. a companson of the :.mNs wastes) under the SWDA. The EPNs SWDA regulations. SWDA regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 Commission notes that some of these 5. Change EPNs language and add aint existmg NRC regulations indicates comparable solid wastes. including implementation features only where that the conformed NRC regulaimns uranium mining wastes. are not necetsary to make the incorporated would me lude all the major regulatory considered hazardous under EPNs standards understandable in the ponciples in the SWDA rules.The rules. See 40 CFR 261.4[b)(7). uramum null tailings context or to
r
*A 24702 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.130 / Tuesday. July 8.1986 / Proposed Rules eliminate procedural aspects, guidance. The following narrative discusses how cover does not need a permeability less :
explanations, and duplication. the imposed provisions of the EPA than or equal to that of the liner in the "
- 6. Merge the thorium and uranium standard are being incorporated into 10 botton of the impoundment. Thus it standards and generally consolidate CFR Part 40. deals with impoundment closure rather requirements by topicin Appendix A. The Introduction to Appendix A to 10 than impoundment operation. The .-.
- 7. Reflect the Commission's position CFR Part 40 contains general standards for cover design in 40 CFR that EPA site specific concurrences information, concepts, and clarificat,on i 192.32(b) prevail.
conflict with Commission authority and f termmology.The proposed addition to References to i 264.228 in i 264.221 1, responsibilities. the Introduction defines new terms used provide options on liner design based on i in the proposed additions to Criteria 5. 6. whether the liner will be removed at Application of these objectives and a a careful reading of the EPA standards a e H ns for aqder, ne. closure or not. Thus. they are essential y ex sting portion, ground water, teachate- to state completely the design standard resulted in the proposed modifications licensed site, liner, sur ace and are paraphrased in the preposed
.f of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in its mp undment, and uppermost aquifer Introduction and in Criteria 5 6. and 7* modifications. Proposed paragraphs SA A are essentially quoted from 40 CFR Part (1H5) of Criterion 5 of Appendix A to 10 I as we9I as the proposed addition of a 192 and 40 CFR 264.10. Definitions in 40 CFR Part 40 correspond to 40 CFR - #
new Criterion 13.These modifications CFR Part 192 for closure, closure plan, 264.221 (a)-(d) with appropriate 25 1P t 12 not a dresse te cjari ef i ions orcompli nce proedural ad aWsuam chgp } earlier conforming action. The followin8 p iod and ' f I A sec ndary ground-water protection y specific sections of 40 CFR Part 264 vet 0 ped f o the nt t i C{ standard is provided by 40 CFR which were promulgated on July 26. 192.32(a)(2) to address leakage from , 264 95 and 264.96 coupled with the imp undments. As worded, the 1982. are incorporated in modified text unique application to licensing under i form into Appendix A.(Note that 40 UMTRCA secondary standard is, not limited to 4 CFR Part 192 incorporated SWDA rules leakage from impo, - - ents so it y In the earlier conforming action, a as codified on lanuary 1,1983. These 'PP II '.s t manageme i, f any byproduct
=
I paragraph noting the dual regulations sections were not amended in 1982 after applicable to ground water protection . rnatenals whether the3 xist within an [, promulgation.) EPA imposed these was added at the beginning of Criterion imp undment or not.The secondary ; sections in its final stanniards. published 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. This standard establishes a procedure for, October 7,1983 (48 FR 45942h limiting release. of. hazardous - paragraph was intended to clarify the regulatory situation pending additional c nstituents for byproduct maten,als to Subpart E safe levels by incorporating 40 CFR 40 CFR 264 92 Ground water protection rulemakin8 bY the Commission and is y being revised to reflect the present 264.92-264.94. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) (i) and standard. (ii) supplement 40 CFR 264.92-264.94 for - 40 CFR 264 93 Ilazardous constituents ac n. EPA dandards in 40 CFR uranium byproduct materials. Paragraph 3 40 CFR 264 94 Concentration limits. (a)(2)(i) adds the elements molybdenum 40 CFR 264.100 Corrective action program. 192.32(a) (1) and (2) establish primary i
' "" W er protection and uranium to thelist of hazardous . , subpart C n la for a p c ion constitutents. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) adds 40 CFR 2r4 til Closure performance operations and prior to the end of radioactivity limits to Table 1 of 40 CFR ;
stdndard. closure. The primary standard is 264.94. 40 CFR 192.41 (a)-(c) provide for , SobpartK essentially a design standard for surface equivalent sunplements for thorium undm s d o manag 11 when thorium byproduct materials are 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operatmg !nvolved. Paragraphs SB (11-(6) 0 g requirements for surface impoundments des gn. constructioE and installation of proposed as additions to Criterion 5 of EPA also indicated that the following a surface impoundment in accordance Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 , specifis sections should be addressed by with 40 CFR 264.221.The key element in c rrespond to 40 CFR 264.92-264.94. NRC in implementing the standards. The impoundment design is a liner. but other Proposed paragraph SC to Criterion 5
]-
Commission will address these sections aspects of the impoundment are also c ntains Table 1 of 5 2M.94 with the : of EPA s regulations in guidance addressed.The specifics of the standard supplemental readioactivity limits documents and site specific licensing are contained in referenced 40 CFR added. Proposed new Cnterion 13 to decisions as needed. 264 221(al-(d). Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 lists the S',j g Paragraph (a) of 5 264 221 and 40 CFR hazardous constituents in Appendis Vill . 192.32(al contain references to 40 CFR of 40 CFR 261 referer ced in i 264.93 40 Cl R 2t4 91 Required program' 264.228. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) states with mols bdenum. uranium. thonum and 40 CF R 2r4 95 Point of complwnce. radium 226 and radium-228 added. except that at sites where the 4h annual precipitatio . falling on the Criterion 13 also esplains the gross 4 er g oun aIer momtoring requiremenu impoundment and any drainage area alpha activity will be treated as a 40 CFR 264 98 Detectioirmondoring contnbuting surface runoff to the hazardous constituent. The Commission program. impoundment in less than the annual assumes that the addition of limits for to CFR 264 99 Compf wm e momtenog evaporatton from the impoundment. the radium-226 and radium-228 and gros program. requirements of 1264.228(a){2thiil(El alpha activity (see 40 CFR 34,mt C referenced in i 264.221 do not apply 192.32(a)(2)(iill to Table 1 also meant
. . ' The Commission considers this that they should be treated as hazardous 40 CI.R 264 tu Post (tusure i ore urd use of reference to i 264.228 to be clarifs ing constituents. Such treatment is ;
""P"
- implementation guidance and not procedurally required to apply the ;
SS"I A binding regulations for impoundment limits. t 40 CFR 2ta 226 mnaonng amt mspn hon design. The effect of the quoted test is to in drafting paragraph Sa(11-(61 of the 40 CF R 264 228 Closure on i rosi i Iowre caution that at sites ahere esaporation proposed revisions to Appendis A to 10
<are. escreds influent moisture. the final Cl R Part 40. the Commission w
Federal Register Vol. 51. No.130 ITuesday, July' 8.1980 / Proposed Rul'es . . . 25/03 , l emphasized the site specific decisions The Commission does not foresee the termination and transfer of the site to a l called for in the secondary standard. need to use the provision to delist government agency for long. term care. I The principal feature of the secondary detected hazardous constituents as The proposed additions to Criterion 5 standard not incorporated in the provided in proposed paragraph 5D(3) of of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 are modification of the scheme by 40 CFR Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.The designated as paragraphs SA through SD 192.32(a)(2) (iv) and (v). Paragraph flexibility in the EPA standard as to facilitate referencing. For conystency (a)(2)(iv) of 40 CFR 192.32 states that reflected in proposed paragraph 5B(2) of and clarity, the remaining paragraphs of "The regulatory agency may establish Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 should Criterion 5 are now being designated as alternate concentration accommodate anticipated licensing SE through 5H.There are no changes to limits. . , provided that after needs. If this does not prove to be the the existing text other than a two word considering practicable corrective case similar development of mutually change in SE(4). " Toxic substances" is corrective actions, these limits are as acceptable guidance could be pursued. changed to " hazardous constituents for low as reasonably achievable The requirements for detection consistency. and. . . the standards of I 2M.94(a) are monitoring program in 40 CFR Section 40 CFR 192.32(b) prescribes satisfied at all points at a greater 192.32(a)(2)(iii) are incorporated into the standards for application after the _ distance than 500 meters from the edge expanded monitoring requirements in closure period to be used to design and of the disposal area and/or outside the .the proposed addition to Criterion 7 of develop closure. plans.The closure site boundary. , The limits in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.The requirements applicable to radiological i 192.32(a)(2)(iv) were not intended as proposed modifications to Criterion 7 hazards were incorporated into mandatory m all cases.They define also include other monitoring and Criterion 6 of Appendix A to 10 CFR when the decision on an alternate information requirements needed to Part 40 in the earlier conforming action. " concen' ration limit would m, volve little The closure requirements applicable to comply with the secondary ground. or no judgement and they were added water protection standards. They nonradiological hazards are established solely for the purpose of allowing emphasize the purpose or objective of in 40 CFR 192.32(b) by requiring limited independent NRC action. the programs and encourage the use of compliance with 40 CFR 264.111.The
, Because the Commission believes that proposed addition to Criterion 6 of d existing programs.
NRC ac on, an becaus th li iti 8 40 CFR 192.33 cross. references the conditions can be misconstrued to apply requirement for a corrective action j endix to 10 art a d, d 264.111. program as described in 40 CFR 264.100 to all alternate concentration limit cases. the proposed modifications to 10 The corrective action program is a key IX. Impact of the Proposed Amendments CFR Part 40 do not include i 192.32(a)(2) part of the secondary ground-water and Regulatory Analysis Considerations j (iv) and (v). However, the Commission's protection standard because it " addresses the problem of how to deal . Mndingof aSignificant as low as reasonably achievable jndonmenta Impact (ALARA) policy remains in effect for with ground. water contamination that these decisions without the terms of exceeds the established limits. The Commission has determined i 192.32(a)(2)(iv). To emphasize its Paragraph SD of Criterion 5 of Appendix under NEPA and the Commission's continued commitment to the policy,it is A to 10 CFR Part 40 reflects the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 that NRC's . repeated in the proposed modifications. requirement for corrective action, the incorporation of the EPA standards as Performing practicable corrective purpose of the program, and the proposed in this action would not be a T actions would be a normal part of required type of action to be considered major Federal action significantly : l i applying the ALARA principle. as it is outlined in 40 CFR 264.100. The affecting the quality of the environment . I proposed paragraph 5D of Appendix A and tScrefore an environmentalimpact The Commission considers this issue i a procedural one. rather than a matter of to 10 CFR Part 40 also includes the 18 statement is not required. The health and safety or environmental month time limit imposed by 40 CFR significant 5?ederal action was the . protection. because 40 CFR 2M.93 and 192.33 for corrective action programs. promulgation by EPA of its regulations F 264.94 are included in the proposed The 40 CFR 264.100 requirement for on September 30,1983. changes. These sections include the monitoring the effectiveness of the . In proposing these additional I l required finding of no signrficant present corrective action param is included in modifications to its regulations in ; or potential hazard and the listed factors the proposed modifications to Criterion Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. the to be considered. The proposed 7 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. Commission intends to complete the modifications clearly and expucitly limit Procedural aspects of 40 CFR 2M.100 action to conform them to the EPA NRC to site-specific decisions. NRC and were simplified for consistency with standards.The purpose of these changes EPA staff agreement on implementing NPC licensing practices under is to clarify previously existing language guidance should provide a practical UMTRCA. Commission prior approval in promulgated EPA standards and method of resolving this procedural of the corrective action programs was incorporate mandatory requirements aspect of 40 CFR Part 192. EPA and NRC added to assure that the licensee does into NRC's regulations. The action staff have been working together on not implement an expensive or proposed here by the Commission is a drafts of alternate concentration limit irreversible program that the consequence of previous actions taken methodologies. Work on the Commission would find unacceptable. by the Congress and the EPA. and is methodologies is proceeding in parallel Flexibility to allow action prior to full legally required by section 275f(3) of the with this rulemaking action and should review and approval by the Commission Atomic Energy Act of1954 as amended. be completed before final rule changes was included to cover the unlikely event Commission action in this case is are in place. that immediate action was required. The essentially nondiscretionary in nature. The alternate concentration limit proposed requirements are intended to and EPA is viewed as the lead agency. determinations are expected to be an provide that any corrective action For purposes of environmental analysis, integral part of implementing the EPA program will be completed by the this action rests upon existing standard. particularly at existing sites. owner / operator prior to license ens ironmental and other impact 1 9 O
24704 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday, July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules Flexibility Certification." a Regulatory to prevent any migration of wastes out sviluations prepared by EPA in the following documents:(1)" Final Flexibility Analysis is not required.) The of the impoundments during the active summary information is not intended to life of the facility. As a practical matter. EnvirgnmentalImpact Statement for this provision requires installation of Standards for the Control of Byproduct be strict cost / benefit analysis or a Materials from Uranium Ore Processing technical justification for the standards. synthetic liners to mitigate migration of It does however, generally relate hazardous constituents frorn the tailings (03 CFR Part 192)." Volumes 1 and 2. economic cost to the benefit expected from all new and expanded EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2. September 1983.' (2) " Regulatory impact Analysis from compliance to the standard.The impoundments. In 1980, the NRC staff summary information should also help concluded that seepage controlis the of Final Environmental Standards for most effective approach for reducing Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites." the reader more fully understand the EPA 520/1-83-010. September 1983, and nature and potentialimpacts of the potential ground-water contamination. proposed action. Seepage control actions relevant to (3) Supplementary Information. Interim Final Rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 122 Statement of the Problem-The earlier installation Criterion 5(All would include of synthetic liners such as 200. 264, and 265. "llazardous Waste discussion outlined the legislative mandate for this rulemaking. flexible polymeric membrane, plastic, or M nagement System: Standards ~ Applicable to Owners and Operators of Objectives-The proposed changes rubber liners. Hrzardous Waste Treatment. Storage, are intended to conform NRC's Synthetic liners pre a state-of-the-art and Disposal Facilities; and EPA regulations to the ground-water component of urardum tailings Administered Permit Programs." standards imposed by EPA for the' impoundments to minimize ground. water contamination caused by leakage published July 26,1982 (47 FR 32274). protection of the environmo1in NRC also prepared an overview of the managing uranium and tb- .m from tailings impoundments. Synthetic liners that are properly designed and potential actions that might be required byproduct wastes. of NRC and Agreement state hcensees Alternatives-The earlis e discussion installed are more effective than other by the EPA standards entitled, under " Scope of this Proposal" outlined types of liners in preventing significant
" Summary of the Waste Management the three alternative scopes of ground-water contamination from active Programs at Uranium Recovery rulemaking considered.The no action tailings impoundments. Persons living
. Faplities as They Relate to the 40 CFR alternative was rejected because it was near uranium processing sites may inconsistent with law. Independent ' benefit directly from.the preservation of Part 192 Standards." NUREC/CR-4403.s The Commission has prepared the development of new regulations to the quality of ground water and surface following overview and update of the water. The benefits of ground-water replace existing NRC and EPA impacts on the environment and regulations was rejected in response to protection cannot be generically uranium and thorium milling industry assessed, however, because these comments on the first step conforming associated with the ground-water benefits are determined by highly site-action published October 16.1985. As protection standards proposed for emphasized in this earlier rulemaking, specific factors.
incorporation. Over 20 additional the Commission views its legal options Since 1977. NRC has required references were used in preparing the to include approval of site specific licensees to construct new uranium overview and update. A list is available alternatives to both NRC and EPA tailings impoundments using either in the NRC's Public Document Room. regulations.This flexibilitly was synthetic or engineered clay liners. The The following discussion la consistent explicity acknowledged by additions to requirement to install synthetic liners in with the content and format guidance the Introduction of Appendix A. In new or existing tailings impoundments
, for a Regulatory Analysis (NUREC/BR- contrast, the Commission does not view will significantly increase the cost of 0058. Revision 1. May 1984J.* The its legal options to include generic tailings di.sposal compared with costs following discussion addresses in alternatives to the standards proposed incurred at uranium mills constructed . .
general terms the economic and other for incorporation by this action. before 1977. Accuracies of cost factors that would be addressed in a estimates for liners at future sites are comprehensive Regulatory Flexibility B. Costs and Benefits of the inherently limited by site-specific Analysis if one was required by this Modifications factors that affect liner costs, including action to meet the requirements of the As just noted. the Commission liner type and characteristics. Regulatory Flesibility Act. (As indicated considers only site specific alternative impoundment design. impoundment size, m the discussion under " Regulatory standards to those proposed for time ofinstallation. and location of the incorporation to be within its discretion. processing facility. Based on cost
- SinMe Copies of the Final Environmentalimpact Thus a discussion of the costs and evaluations described in NRC's Generic and the Restlanory impact Anah sis. as available, Ensironn2 ental Impact Statement on benefits of alternative standards is
* " "' inappropriate. The following discussion Uranium Milling (GEIS NUREG-0706)*
E) rNIN"[se)Yf[e uERa n gr ms. u s Enuronmeni Prmecian Agency. Washington. is therefore limited to an overview of the and this updated analysis, installation of costs and benefits of the six major s> nthetic liners is expected to account DC swa telephone number 1~03l 55r-93 1. A copy of each document is aho avelable for inspemon features of the EPA standards be:ng for1 to 2 percent of the value of uranium
"' " " '""' incorporated.The features are (1) produced at a typical uranium mill. (See Ei rccIE.YvIh a n. 2 55 synthetic liners, (2) alternatives to Table 1 at the end of this section.) The
= Copies of NUREC/CR-4403. NUREGIDR-orca. value of uranium was estimated by sind NURE G O*on me be purchased through the synthetic liners. (3) ground water us cmcrnmeni Prmtine ornce by ca:iins(20:1 monitoring. (4) alternate concentration assuming that the mill operates for 15
" ' "'"' limits. (5) closure, and (6) corrective years, an annual yellowcake production
[,7a*[ fee.'P lM in I)C actions for ground-water contamination. of 580 metric tonnes (MT), and a fixed amucon: copies may .!so t,e purchased from the market price for yellowcake of $44.100 National Tec hmt al Information Seruce. U s. 1. Synthetic Liners per MT ($20 per pound.1985 dollars). Department of Commerre. 528s Port Royal Road. 8 As provided in Criterion SA(1), liners The average size of existing uranium ff',*,f'j',dja^;j'c ,',$P[', ",'[
, , "'$l'[gf for tatlings surface impoundments n.ust tailings impoundments or groups of Nt hc Document Room, stir il Street NW . impoundments in the United States is Washirgton. DC 2055s. be d: signed, constructed, and installed
I - Federal Register / Vol. 51 No.130 /' Tuesday. July 8,1986 / Prop'os'ed Rules 72WO5 approximately 70 hectares (175 acres). liner requirement if the applicant or environmental protection at uranium Based on unit costs of synthetic liners licensee can demonstrate to the processing facilities. Successful installed at other waste disposal sites in Commission that a combination of applications could benefit other the United States, the cost of synthetic design. operation, and site programs for radiological and non-liner installation in an average-size characteristics prevents migration of radiological waste management. impoundment would be expected to hazardous constituents into ground 3. Ground-water Monitoring range from $4.2 to $10.4 million (1985 water or surface water at any future dollars). Unit costs for liners installed time.This demonstration should Criterion 7A requires lmplementation prior to 1985 were escalated to 1985 consider such factors as the nature and of ground-water monitoring programs costs in proportion to increases in quantity of wastes, alternate design and analysis of ground-water monitoring construction price indexes. Table 1 features and operation practices, data.These programs directly support compares estimated costs for synthetic hydrogeologic site characteristics, and the secondary ground-water protection liner installation with costs of other other factors that could influence the standard of phased monitoring and ground-water protection measures quality of teachate and mobility of corrective actions based on monitoring based on a simplified site model.These hazardous constituents. Liners made of results.The secondary standard and cost estimates may differ from actual clay or other natural materials may be monitoring requirements apply to ail costs based on site-specific factor an integral part of the design impoundments, not just new or including the actual size and number of considerations under the flexibility expanded ~ones. Most existing impoundments used. provided by paragraph 5A(3). monitoring programs at NRC licensed
- 2. Alternatives to Synthetic Liners Costs incurred in successfully uranium processing sites needed only demonstrating the exemption will vary minor modifications to serve as As an alternative to synthetic liner based on the relative importance and detection monitoring for leakage of installation. Criterion SA(1) provides type of site characteristics, design hazardous constituents from the cense sa app c s n 9 p9 eji ty features, and operation practices. For example, a successful demonstration impoundments. However, the programs may need to be upgraded to comply with uranium tailings. provided that tailings based primarily on site characteristics the subsequent requirements for uents d no ga i providing data to set standards and i g, , ,g edim pd may only require ad.ditional collection of . . demonstrating compliance with site-
' site characterization information to . water. or surface water during the active supplement information contamed in l life of the facility.The licensee or specific standardsground-water protection and the effectiveness o ,f envir nmental assessments and applicant would be required durina correct.on actions. For example, closure of the facility to remove or- licensing evaluations pursuant to Criterion 5G(2). The incremental cost in licensees may need to install new wells decontaminate all waste residues (e.g., at sites where existing monitoring wells tailings), contaminated impoundment this case would be limited to the additional costs of collecting more- are inadequate to evaluate all aspects of components (e.g.. liners, embankments), a corrective action program and they contaminated soils and geologic media, detailed hydrogeologic information (e.g., aquifer tests analyses, ground-water may need to expand monitoring and contaminated structures and programs to sample for more equipment In contrast. relocation of the monitoring results, stratigraphic data). in c ntrast. a demonstration may be constituents. tailings would generally not be required for disposalimpoundments constructed based primarily on appropnate The costs of upgrading existing with synthetic liners.
- perational practices such as drying the ground-water monitoring programs at The use of tailing impoundments for tailings with cyclones or belt filters.The uranium processing sites will be storage rather than disposalis not cost of this alternative would be the affected by site-specific factors such as considered economically viable at capital costs of necessary equipment the adequacy of existing monitoring conventional mills because of the high and structures, as well as the wells, extent of ground-water costs of removing, decontaminating, and maintenance and operational costs contamination, and hydrogeologic site j
- disposing large volumes of tailings and associated with the equipment and characteristics. These costs will be I contaminated wastes. This alternative structures.The costs of clay, admixed, incremental to costs for ground-water also involves costs for developing and or asphalt liners are estimated in Table monitoring at existing sites for
- constructing chemically-treated or 1. Because of the diversity of potential compliance with licensing conditions 6
admixed liners that will prevent waste alternatives to synthetic liner and preparation of environmental migration through the liner into soils. installation, the costs of the alternatives assessments. Ground-water monitoring geologic media, ground water. and are expected to vary from less than to costs may also be affected by site-surface water. As seen in Table 1. the greater than the costs of symhetic liners specit'ic decisions such as pursuing an estimated cost for excavating and as described in Table 1. exemption to the synthetic liner hauling tailings to a nearby disposal site The potential benefits gained from the requirement, requesting alternate significantly exceeds the cost of exemption are essentially equivalent to concentration limits, or selecting synthetic liner installation. Use of potential benefits associated with corrective actions for groundwater impoundments for tailings storage synthetic liner installa tion. namely contamination. Based on unit costs for appears even less likely considering protection of ground water and surface monitoring wells in the United States, additional costs for the alternative water quality. This benefit may be the initial cost for installing 30 shallow including disposal site preparation realized by humans living near uranium (50-foot deep) wells at a site ranges from costs; design, testing. and installation processing facilities and the surrounding about $43.000 to $105.000 (1985). costs for liners: and costs for dewatering environment.The flexibility could also Sarnpling these wells semi-annually and the tailings so they can be relocated to a allow more cost-effective options. As a analyzing samples for major and minor disposal site. potential secondary benefit of the liner ions, inorganic hazardous constituents. Criterion SA(3) provides the applicant exemption. Criterion SA(3) may radionuclides, and organic in ficator or licensee with an opportunity for stimulate effective application of new parameters would be expected to range another exemption from the synthetic control and operation technologies for from S40.0n0 to S140.000 per par (19851
.a
.? W
~
24706 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / T'uesday. July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules Annual costs for routine maintenance of long term infiltration and mobilization of 1.icensees have been operating ' monitorinc3 wells amounts to a small waste components. The arid western programs to mitigate ground-water frzction (e.g.,1 to 2%) of the initial environmental characteristics of most contamination at uranium mills for - capital expense. In comparison with the processing sites in combination with several years. The corrective action costs of other ground water protection effective earthen covers for radon programs required in today's measures, the total cost of ground-water control and erosion protection should amendments may substantially increase - monitoring is relatively small for the generally be sufficient to minimize long- the costs associated with ground-water i new model mill and the associated term infiltration into staoilized protection at uranium processing
- assumptions on time periods. impoundments. lfowever, some tailings facilities by requiring expansion of C disposalimpoundments in humid existing mitigation programs or y
- 4. Alternate Concentration 1.imits climates with synthetic liners may development of new corrective action q Today's proposed amendments require more complicated cover designs programs. Accuracies of cost estimates proside licensees with flexibility in and installations to prevent detrimental for corrective action programs are developing site-specific ground-water accumulation of water in the stabilized inherently limited by site-gecific i.
protection standards that incorporate impoundment after closure (i.e bathtub . factors such as the extent and type of 5 alternate concentration limits in lieu of effect). For example, a site in a humid contamination. volume of tailings, t background concentration limits or the climate may require a composite cover hydraulic and geochqmical properties of ; nits listed in Criterion SC. The to meet both the radiological and the hydrogeologic system, impoundment ;
,ommission may establish alternate nonradiological objectives. The design, and other factors that affect the '
concentration limits provided that a compositetover might include technical feasibility, practicality, timing. ' hazardous constituent does not pose a compacted sdt to control radon diffusion and extent of corrective actions for - present or potential hazard to humans or and a bituminous concrete surface seal ground-water contamination. - 3 the environment as long as its to minimize infiltration and mobilization i concentration does not exceed this of nonradiological constituents. TABLE 1.-COST COMPARISON FOR GROUND-alternate limit at the point of The cost of a bituminous concrete seal WATER PROTECTION ACTIONS AT A MOoEL U compliance. for an average-size impoundment would CONVENTIONAL Mut d
~
The costs associated with . be expected to range from $1.3 to $1.7 < applications for alternate conceritration million (1985). As with other large-scale com' g p c.n, , .
- limits'will vary based on site-specific co'nstruction projects. the costs of seals '""oon'* A , p'"" " " i factors that determine information and other closure measures may vary --
needs for the demonstration. considerably based on site-specific syrea tm . 42mtoa u o tr
""' ^*'
Information needed to support factors such as type and characteristics ','n',,C,** u m s.o o s io as I applications for alternate limits would of the seal. cover design size of cover. sur r.ncn r 42 m 7a iieis ,- draw heavily on information contained location of the processing site. and the '"**8 ~*2" in environmental reports and license effectiveness of tailings stabilization d'"' ca
, .. " con,,,, ismir osmo 4 applications. Because detailed site and dewatering prior to impoundment G'a'* *** D'"* W8 information is an existing requirement closure. The cost of synthetic, admixed. Ja',7w w. " * *# """ '
Isee Criterion SG). justifications for or concrete cover seals would be *='n=ao - --~ oseo7 ol e o r ernate concentration limits should expected to be comparable to the cost of T***u .*** '*"" ,3 ,, 33, i,...
.,aly need to be supplemented with synthetic liners beneath tailings neoc. on a r an,t , ._.- 24 s e sa i s 4 e is =
information about adverse effects of impoundments. , ,,, ,,, ,,,,,,,,g73,,,,, hazardous constituents on humans and the ensironment based on reputable 6. Correctn.e . Actions for Ground water i.,,,,,,, . mew. io . m, ar,.n,
, .n
.n,o.n.c,s
, i, na coni,s n. at> ,a,oo.oo i.e
,=,
Contamination
- literature.The cost of assembling this g',j,y,=J,*,,'q',.*,,,9l,',,,*d,'g*, ,, *mTJ information is expected to be minimal In recognition of potential failures of 7,fl, ","T,"l,"7"'in7E*'n",o",*.a 8
,'@. .'na*n'.*"'.
compared willrcosts for other ground- impoundment liners and covers. today's o*l,q dy,,yg"l,,o'og,g gy,",'j water protection actions such as liner proposed amendments provide for a m.w, o,v. , swoo o, ur. ng. ,.oc.=a m and cover installation or grotmd. water secondary ground-water protection *;"';,';"'""""**'"'"'**"""***""9'" monitoring. Costs for assessing practic ble correctise actions and other standard involving a phased apptcach for ground-water monitoring and y ,,,c,a,,m,g g g, g g g s at=can.o-.o,=nou.m i i..cn.no eam mi aspects of showing that proposed corrective action. Corrective actions ['j"fn'7;;
. L'*,,J'",7"n"*,,".7o,g.;g;; *,7, j, alterna'e concentration hmits are may be required to restore ground water qmmgog ALAR A would be sery site specif;c but to its background quality to avoid yt,.gggy,g,s4escu,.'s u.. a nei nto ta=ea .: ines
.%ia to should also be small compared to other adverse effects on htmans and the *g,'50 j',,50*Z,5#""
'"8""*9""'""
costs. environment. The objectis e or corrective action programs is to return hazardous Table 1 compares relative costs of
- 5. Closure ground water protection actions.
constituents in the uppermost aquifer to The proposed addaion to Cr:terion 6 their respective concentration limits at including components of corrective establishes the objectnes for dealing the point of compliance. Corrective action programs such as sturry trench with no: rad olosical hazards during action may involve eliminating the installation. grouting, drain and well closure. The objectis es are generally the source of ground-water contamination installation and operation, relocation of same as those already in place for by either relocating the tailings to a tail . and aquifer restoration. (Note i radiological hazards. Closure design w di suitable disposal site or treating them in that listed actions include measures also be impacted by the proposed place to limit the mobility and release of - that have not been successfully , modific..tions to Cr: tenon 5. For hazardous constituents. In addition, the demonstrated at existing NRC licensed example. Criterion 5 increases the correctis e action program may also tailings sites but they represent possible hkehhood that sy nthetic hners will be ins olve treating ground water between options ) The costs of component used at all future sites. The addition to the point of comphance and the site actions would be summed to develop Criterion 6 also heightens concern over boundary. cost estimates of integrated corrective
1 1 l l l Federal Register / Vol. 5L No.130 / Tu:sday. July 8,1986 / Propos:d Ruits 24707
]
cction programs. An example of an required by law to implement and tailings by Cotter Corporation in integrated corrective action program enforce the EPA standards to which this Colorado and pumpback systems by might include installation of a bentonite rulemaking would conform NRC j mills in New Mexico. AdditionaPy four slurry wall upgradient of a regulations, there should be minimal s contaminated ground. water p!ume, mills (2 in Colorado and 2 in New ' impact. installation and operation of injection Mexico) have been added to the Memorandum of Understanding Superfund National Priority Listing as a ; and withdrawal wells for squifer (MOU) With EPA-Negotiations on a back-up for achieving compliance with restoration, and construction and MOU with EPA were initiated operation of a water treatment facility to the EPA standards were issued in soon after 40 CFR Part 192 and 10 CFR Part 40. improve the quality of water removed Some form of ground-water monitoring October of1983 to facilitate NRC is under way by the mills in the from the contaminated aquifer. The implementation of the standards, to corrective action program might also Agreement States. When the NRC issues reduce inconsistencies, and to clarify include enhanced or early dewatering of responsibilities. Several draft MOU's its final regulation on this topic, we txilings or modifying thz planned cover expect the States to refine their have been discussed with EPA since to add sealing materials. In addition to that tirse.Many of the originalissues requirements to be equivalent to the activities directly related to design and which were to be addressed by the NRC regulation to the extent implementation of the corrective action MOU have been resolved and the main practicable, or more stringent. In * - programs, the program also incurs costs issue that is left to be addressed is how general, the States are attempting to for detailed ground-water monitoring NRC will establish alternate meet the intent of 40 CFR Part 192 to the and evaluation of monitoring data to concentration limits'and to what extent best of their abilities. evaluate the effectiveness of corrective EPA will be involved in those decisions. NRC has taken a number of steps to action programs. The costa of corrective Work on the MOU was deferred by inform its licensees about the EPA actions may account for a significant mutual consent in late 1984 pending standards and to implement and enforce proportion (e.g.,20% for the model mill development of a generic methodology the standards. On February 2.1964. NRC in Table 1) of the value of yellowcake by NRC and EPA staff for evaluating issued a letter to NRC licensees which I produced depending on the type and alternate concentration limits. At this provided guidance on how all aspects of extent of corrective actions. l writing, the effort to develop a generic . the standards would be implemented i C /mpacts on OtherRequirements and methodology is still underway. When and reminded licensees that the ;;i Pusons . the methodology is completed. NRC and atandards were in effect. A letter to E A EPA may use an MOU to establish Ilcensees dated July 10.1984, set forth
- NRCandLicensee Stoffing.-The procedures for its application. It is also the NRC criteria for an acceptable major impacts of the selected' alternative possible that after NRC's uranium mill detection monitoring program and on NRC programs is the resource tailings regulations are issued, other provided the results of a preliminary ' 3 savings of the reduced rulemaking scope agreements with EPA might be review gf existing ground-water and the reduced need to develop or necessary requiring the development of modify existing guidance documents. monitoring programs relative to these an AfOU with a different focus than has criteria. Staff developed a technical Breause the EPA standards are al eady been discussed in the past.
imposed. The rulemaking itself has no position on detection monitoring as part direct effect on licensing actions. Constraints.-Unless court action sets of the process of preparing and Isauing the EPA standards aside. NRC is Licensees will probably have to increase obligated to conform its rules and I cense amendments on detection staff and/or use consultants to some implement and enforce the EPA monitoring. Between April 22 and May degree to comply with the ground-water 7.1985. NRC issued amendments to its standards. A United States Court of protection 6tandards in interim and final Appeals has upheld the EPA standards li" I h I reclamation programs. The depressed prnposed for inclusion in Appendix A to ommiss oning ubsequen o the state of the industry has resulted in i'8"*" f th' 'It'P8" fi" !i" 10 CFR Part 40. See. American Mining significant licensee staff reductions and Congress v. Thomas. 772 F.2d 640 (10th amendments.11 of the 13 licensees mcertaintWs. Thus,it is difficult to requested heanngs. The amendments , Cir.1985). assess the impact of the rulemaking were withdrawn on June 26,1985 and 4 Decision Rationale.-The basis for g itself on the bcensees' fluid staffing deciding the scope of rulemaking has rept ced by immediately effective . situation. rders on ju,1y 19.1985. As noted in a Agreement States-There are four been discussed elsewhere. The rationale t for truncating the EPA referenced Federal Register notice dated November ! I Agreement States regulating uranium standards was di 7,1985 (50 FR 46370). licensees also milling and mill tailings that will be of This Proposal..s.cused under " Content requested hearings on the orders and the 1 impacted by the proposed ground-watcr l D. Implementation immediate effectiveness of the orders ' protection regulations: Texas New l Mexico (the Governor of New Mexico was rescinded.The notice resulted in an f l The four Agreement States regulating additional request for hearing from the has requested that the NRC reassert its uranium mill operations have some form Environmental Defense Fund. The authority over uranium milling and mill of operational criteris and objectives requests for hearings are being tathngs by letter dated March 18,1986). which are intended to provide ground. processed in accordance with usual Colorado, and Washington. Fol!owing water protection. There are differences agency procedures. NRC has also taken promulgation of final rules by the d between 40 CFR Part 192 and the State enforcement action for violation of the 4 l Commission. each of the four States will programs for ground. water protection. liner requirement in the standard. The d need to amend their uranium milling particularly in the areas of point of depressed state of the industry has replations so that the State's regulatory compliance measurements, selected minimized the need to implement certain l program for uranium mills remains indicator parameters and application of aspects of the ground-water protectinn ( equivalent to, to the extent practicab!c. the principle of nondegradation. Other or more stringent than. the NRC's standards. For exaciple, licensees do not mitigating actions have been noted need new impoundments when they are ; regulatory program for uranium milling. which have been sanctioned by the not operating. NRC will continue to However. since the States are already Agreement States, e g.. relocation of implement and enforce the standards on j a d
24708 Fed:rzl Regist:r / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday, July 8.1986 / Proposed Rules a site specific basis'in the int'erim while license apphcations for uranium mills. materials into the ground water, the this rulemaking is pending. Regulatory Guide 4.14
- is concerned earth cover to be placed over tailings or The publi: should also note that for with environm mtal monitoring at wastes to prevent the surface exhalation several years prior to promulgation of uranium mills. Minor revision of of radon, and the charge imposed on the the EPA standards, NRC has been Regulatory Guides 3.5 and 4.14 may be mill operator to cover the costs of long implementing programs to protect necessary. term surveillance.The petitioner ground-water quality at NRC-licensed Several other guides address ground believes that its suggested changes facilities. All new impoundments water (e.g., " Ground-water Monitoring would significantly reduce compliance licensed by NRC since 1977 have been in Uranium In Situ Solution Mines" costs incurred by the petitioner in the, lined with either synthetic or natural (WM-8102
- but were found not to be operation of its uranium milling facilities materials. All facilities have in place impacted by the proposed rulemaking. and would continue to adequately ground-water monitoring systems A8 implementation experience is gained, protect the public health, safety and the designed to locate and quantify seepage additional regulatory documents on environment.
from the impoundments. ApproximatelY ground-water matters may be prepared. The NRC is required by law to No specific needs have been identified , conforra its uranium mill tailings three-fourths of the facilities have at this time other than the alternate regulations to the final standards issued r*. medial or mitigative programs m placa concentration methodology discussed by the EPA for uranium and thorium mill to intercept and return contaminated previously.
- tailings. The NRC has chosen to meet ground water to the impoundments. E. Relationship to OtherExisting or this mandate in two rulemaking Enhanced water evaporation systems ProposedNRCRequirements 10 CFR proceedings that set out amendments to are also used at four facilities. Part 40-The modifications proposed by Appendix A to to CFR Part 40.The final The EPA /NRC cooperative efforts on this a:: tion would complete the mandate rule published October 16,1985 (50 FR generic methodologies for determining to conform NRC rules to the EPA 41852). completed the first rulemaking -
acceptable alternate concentration standards. The modifications have been action. That final rule revised Appendix limits were discussed earlier under integrated into Appendix A of Part 40 to A to 10 CFR Part 40 in order to conform
" Content of this Proposal." Any consolidate topics to the extent these provisions to EPA's standards for - . decisions needed before mutually practicable. all EPA requirements except those .
acceptable rqethodologies are in place SWDA Comparable Changes-The relating to gro.und-water protection. This - will be handled ori a case-by-case basis. mandate in section 84(a)(3) of the AEA proposed rule, which is part of the 1.icensing decisions will be made in on comparability to SWDA second rulemaking proceeding, proposes accordance with the health and safety requiremente has been addressed the amendments to Appendix A to Part and environmental standards imposed previously. The Commission's 40 the fiRC believes necessary to by the EPA standard as reflected in the regulations and licensing requirements incorporate EPA's ground-water - proposed modifications in this present will cover the basic elements of the protection requirements into its , action
- SWDA regulations when the present regulations. Most of the issues raised by action is completed.The Commission the petitioner would amend portions of There are several NRC Regulatory does not consider detailed regulations Appendix A to Part 40 affected by these Guides that will be impacted by the necessary to accomplish the AEA rulemaking actions designed to conform proposed rulemaking. Draft Regulatory mandate. The Commission will continue NRC regrlations to EPA standards.
Guide MS-146-4 8 and the to monitor DOE and industry corresponding Branch Position WM- The amendments suggested by the assessments of the state of theindustry, petitioner for Criterion 5 concern 8101 '. describe acceptable engineerin8 evolution of the technologies associated ground. water issues which are practices for the design, installation, and with the SWDA regulations. NRC and addressed in detailin this proposed rule. inspection of seepage controlliners. State licensing experience, and EPA The petitioner reouested that Criterion 5 Major revision will be required in ti;ese ground. water policy development and be emended to give consideration to the two guidance documents. Regulatory rulemaking for mining and similar use, characteristics, size. and Guide 3.5 5 addresses the content of wastes. Based on current assessments of availability of ground water for potable the state of the industry, the need for use in detern.ining potentially [ 8 Regulatory guides are ava:lable for inspection at additional rulemaking to accommodate deleterious impacts of tailings teachate applications for new mills would the comminion e Pubhc Document Room.1717 H to human health. Although these factors l sireet Nw wasbngton. Dc. Requests for single probably be at least 5 years away. None are addressed in this proposed rule. the UuUIm*a cIstn ((n i i for sI[s'E[$ pies of future of the other factors to be monitored scope of the proposed amendments to draft guides in specific dwisions shou'd be made in suggest the need for Commission Criterion 5 is limited to those actions writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. rulemaking any sooner, needed to comply with the mandate to , wasbnaton. oc :055s. Attention. Director. Dimion Petition for Rulemaking-On conform these regulations to EPA
*' rechnicalinformation and Document control- November 30,1982, the Nuclear l standards.
obra e$f ie i of , tan 7ge ent Regulatory Commission published in the The petitioner's sugges'ed p u s Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington. Federal Register (47 FR 53889) a notice amendments to Criteria 1 and 6 concern DC 20555. telephone t301l 42?-4312. of receipt of a petition for rulemaking issues which the NRC addressed in the l
- Resulatory Guides are avadaNe for er.spection subnlitted by the Union Carbide final rule published October 16,1985 (50 ;
at Ac Comminion's Public Document Room 1717 H Corporation (PRM-4044). The petitioner FR 418521. In Criterion 1. the petitioner - desma pur[haIe t [Ne [rnment requests that the NRC amend Criteria 1. requested that tailings be isolated from Pnniing Ofnce pnce. A subsenption service for 5. 6. and to of 10 CFR 40 Appendix A. the environment during . . . " operations future suides in specific dmsions in as aitable The petitioner suggests specific and for a period of 100400 years throu6 the Government Pnniing Office information amendments to the criteria governing thereafter without active maintenance , t aIne'd NrNt[es pernNnd t7 the selection of new tailings disposal ',rather than for " thousands of , thumenit U 10 :,prnment Pnntma Off+e P O. sites or the adequacy of existing tailings years as originally set out in Appendix tu ros:. wauington. Dc :tma.?on disposal sites the seepage of toxic A to Part 40. In Criterion 6. the petitioner
' : ;.. ,. ei .
'X ;
Federal Register / Vol. 51 No.130 / Tuesday, July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules '24709 requesteil that remedial action be cost- under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a Introduction. * *
- effective and based on a realistic small businessis one that is The following definitions apply to the j assessment of the health hazard to the irdependently owned and operated. specified terms as used in tius Appendir 3
public concerning earth cover thickness Because this millis not independently " Aquifer" means a geologic formation, and the surface exhalation of radon. owned,it does not qualify as a small group of formations, or part of a formation Although the October 16,1985 final rule entity. capable of yielding a significant amount of amended Criteria 1 and 6 extensively, ground water to wells or sprtngs. the scope of those amendments was List of Subjectsin to CFR Part 40 Closure" means the activities following lim;ted to the actions needed to conform opua st d " "' "d ( Covernment contracts. Hazardous ,,{ n dings ar d site used to these provisions to EPA,s requirement,s.- materials-transportation. Nuclear produce byproduct materials and reclaim the The petitioner suggested that Criterion materials. Penalty. Reporting and tailing and/or waste disposal area. 10 be amended so that a 2% annual real recordkeeping requirements. Source " Closure plan" means the Commission Interest rate rather than the current 1% material, and Uranium. approved plan to accomplish closure. annual real interest rate on collected " Compliance period" begins when the funds be imposed on each mill operator XII. Proposed Modifications Commission sets secondary groundwater to cover the cost of long. term protection standards and ends when the ~ - surveillance. The petitioner believes that PART 40-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF owner or operator s license is terminated and the 2% annual realinterest rate is a SOURCE MATERIAL the site is transferred to the State or Federal te p " ((e ac , '" 8f ad Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, the Energy Reorganization
'8N #'
maTate n'b nkment or ridge of This issue is beyond the scope of the either natural or man-made materials used to Act of 1974, as amended. 5 U.S.C. 553. prevent the movement of liquids, sludges. rulemaking actions necessary t and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation solids or other resterials. conform NRC regulations to EPA Control Act of 1978, as amended, the " Disposal area" means the area containing standards and has not been addressed NRC is proposing the following byprducts materials to which the in either the October 16,1985 final rule requirements of criterion e apply. - amendments to 10 CFR Part 40. or in this proposed rule. .
- Existing portion" means that land eurface When the NRC publishes its final rule 1. The authority citation for Part 40 area of an existing surface impounded on
. on ground. water protection, the continues to read as follows: , which significant quantities of uranium or. .
rulemaking proceedings necessary to Authority: Secs. 62. 63. 64. 65. 81.161.182, thoriam byproddet material has been placed conform its regulations to EPA 183.180. 68 Stat. 932. 933,935. 948,953. 954. prior to September 30,1983. standards will be completed. At that 955, as amended secs.11e(2). 83,84. Pub. L " Ground water" means water below the time, the NRC will make a final swo4. 92 Stat. 3033, as amended. 3039, sec. lan,,d surface in a zone of saturation. i determination on the issues raised by 234,83. Stat. 444. as amended (42 U.S.C 2014(e}(2). 2M 2N3. 2094. 20B5. 2111,2113. [d : Isajy a ud any the petitioner and publish its findings in liquid, that has percolated through or drained the Federal Register. 2114. 2201. 2232. 2238, 2282); secs. 274. Pub. L 4-3" 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C 2021); secs. 201. fro..m the byproduct X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement as amended. 202,2006 88 Stat.1242, as I.icensed site" meansmaterial' the area contained within the boundary of a location under the This proposed rule amends amended. 1244.1240 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842. control of persons generating or storing information collection requirements 6) 5 Sta 1asame byproduct materials under a Commission
,, 2 subject to the requirements of the license.
Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(44
'C 8I8 IHU' U" " PU - "I.iner" means a continuous layer of 601. sec."10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C 5851). natural or man-made materials, beneath or g.S.C. 3501 et scq.). Existing NRC Section 40.3Hg) also issued under sec.122,68 on the sides of a surface impoundment which i requirements m 10 CFR Part 40 were Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also restricts the downward or lateral escape of approsed by the Office of Management issued under tec.184. 68 Stat. 954. as byproduct material, hazardous constituents.
and Budget approval number 3150-0020. amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also orleachste.
; This rule has been submitted to the issued under sec.187. 68 Stat. 955 (42 USC " Point of compliance"is the site specific h Office of Management and Budget for 2237). location in the uppermost aquifer where the review and approval of the paperwork For the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958, as ground. water protection standard must be I requirements. amended (42 U.S C. 2273): il 40.3. 40.25(d)(1)- met.
(3). 40.35(al-(d) 40.41(b) and (c). 40.48. " Surface impoundment" means a natural XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 40.51(a) and (c1. and 40.63 are issued under topographic depression, manmade As required by the Regulatory sec.16tb. 68 Stat. 948, as amended. (42 U.S.C excavation, or diked area which is designed 220Mb)l; and il 40.25(c) and (d)(31 and (4). to hold an accumulation ofliquid wastes or
', Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b)'
i 4 2Ncm e 5(e), m42. met. w62. m64 wastes containing free hquids and which is 4 the Commission certifies that this rule and 40 as are issued under sec.161o,68 Stat. not an injection well. will not, if promulgated, have a 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201[o)). "t'ppermost aquifer" means the geologic t significant economic impact upon a formation nearest the natural ground surface substantial number of small entities. Appendix A to Part 40 is amended as that is an aquifer as well as lower aquifers l Therefore, no Regulatory Flexibility follows: that are hydraulically interconnected with y Analysis has been prepared.The basis this aquifer within the facihty's property Appendix A to Part 40--Criteria for this finding is the nature of the " ' 'Y' Relating to the Operation of Uranium
)} licensees. Of the licensed uranium mills.only two qual;fy as small entit.ies.
Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or 3. Criterion 5 is revised to read as
; Wastes Produced by the Extraction or follows:
, Almost all the mills are owned by large Concentration of Source Material From Criterion 5-Criteria 5A-5D and new 4 corporations. One millis partly. owned Ores Processed Primarily for Their criterion 13 incorporate the basic grand-by a company that could qualify as a water protection standards imposed by the j Source Material Content
, small business, according to the Nuclear Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Regulatory Commission's generic small 2. Introduction to Appendix A is Part 192. Subparts D and E (48 FR 45926:
entity defmition of less than 3.5 million amended by adding the following text at October 7.1983) which apply dunnq dollars in annual receipts. Ilowever, the end of the
Introduction:
operations and prior to the end of tiowre.
, ~
. 24710 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday, July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules Ground. water monitoring to comply with oserfilhng: wind and wave actions: rainfall: (vil The existmg quality of ground water, these standards is required by Cntenon 7A. run-on: malfunctions of level controllers. including other sources of contamination and 5A(1}-The prirnary ground-water alarms, and other equipment; and human their cumulative impact on the ground-watef protection standard is a design standard for error. quality: surface impoundments used to manage 5Als)-When d:kes are used to form the (vii) The potential for health risks caused uranium and thorium byproduct matenal. surface impoundment. the dikes must be Surface impoundments (except for an existing designed. constructed. and maintained with by human exposure to waste constituents: ~ (v ii) The potential damage to wild life. portioni must have a liner that is designed. sufficient structural integrity to prevent constructed. and installed to prevent any massive failure of the dikes. In ensuring crops. vegetation. and physical structures migration of wastes out of the impoundment structural integ-ity, it must not be presumed caused by exposure to waste constituents; ' to the adjacent subsurface soil. ground water, that the liner system will function without ( x) The persistence and permaence of the or surface water at any time dunng the active leakage during the active life of the~ potential adverse effects. hfe (including the closure period) of the impoundment. (b) Potential adverse effects on irnpoundment. De liner may be constructed SB(1l-Uranium and thorium byproduct hydraulically-connected surface water of materials that may allow wastes to migrate materials must be managed to conform to the quality. considering-into the liner (but not into the adjacent following secondary ground. water protection (i) The volume and physical and chemical subsurface enil. ground water. or surface standard: Hazardous constituents enterng the characteristics of the waste in the licensed water) during the active hfe of the facihty. ground water from a licensed site must not site: .- provided that impoundment closure includes exceed the specified concentration limits in (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of removal or decontamination of all waste the uppermost aquifer beyond the pint of the facihty and surrounding land; _ rIsidues. contaminated containment s3 stem compliance dunng the con.phance period. (iii) The quantity and quality of ground components (liners. etc.). contaminated Hazardous constituents are those water. and the direction of ground-water , subsoils. and structures and equipment constituents identified by the Ccmmission flow contaminated with waste and teachate. For pursuant to paragraph 5B{2) of this cnterion. (is) The p'a tterns of rainfallin the regioni impoundments that will be closed with the Specified concentration limits are those limits (v) The proximity of the licensed site to hner material left in place. the liner must be established by the Commission as indicated surface waters: c:nstructed of materials that can prevent in paragraph 5 Bis) of this criterion. The . f". ' Commission will also establish the point of (vi) The current and future uses of surface wistes from migrating into the liner during waters in the area and any water quality the active hre of the facihty. c mpliance and compliance period on a site " specific basis through license conditions and standards established for those surface 5A(:)-The liner required by paragraph waters: ' 5Af t) above be-- orders The objectise in selecting the point of c mphanceis t pr vide the earhest (vil) The existing quality of surface water. - ja) Constructed of materials that has e includmg other sources of contamination and' appropriale chemical properties a nd practicable warning that the impoundment . is g , , sufficient strength and thickness to prevent releasing azardous constituents to the , I C ' ' failure due to pressure gradients (including' (,","Ifc eft $ v prompt}n i a on (viii) The potential for health rislis caused st: tic head and external hydrogeologic by human exposure to waste constituents; forces), physical contact with the waste or ground. water contamination on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the (ix) The potential damage to wdd. life. - Isachate to which they are exposed. climatic creps. vegetation, and physical structures disposal area. The Commission shall identify conditions. the stress of installation. and the caused by exposure to waste constituents: stress of dady operation hazardous constituents. establish concentration hmits. set the compliance and (b) Placed upon a foundation or base penod, and adlust the point of compliance. if - (s) The eersistence and permanence of the l capable of providing support to the hner and needed, when the detection monitoring potential adverse effects. resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the hner established under Cnterion 7A indicates SD(4)-In making any determinations under leakage of hazardous constituents from the paragraphs SB(3) and SB(6) of this criterion due to settlement. compression, or uphft; and disposal area. (c) Installed to cnver all surrounding earth about the use of ground water in the area hkely to be in contact with the wastes or 5B(2)-A constituent becomes a hazardous around the facihty, the Commission will leachate. constituent subject to paragraph 5B(2) when consider any identification of underground the constituent- sources of dnnking water and esempted 5 A(3)-The applicant or licensee will be (a) is reasonably espected to be in or aquifers made by the Environmental esempted from the requirements of paragraph denved from the byproduct materialin the Protection Agency. SA(t)of thiscriterion if the Commission disposal area: fmds. based on a demonstration by the $N5)-At the point of compliance. the (b) Has been detected in the ground water concentration of a hazardous constituent archcant c,r licensee, that alternate design in the uppermost aquifer and and cperating practices, includmg the dosure must not exceed-(c)is hsted in Cnterion 13 of this appendit (a) The Commission appros ed background plan. together with site charactenstics w 11 SD(3)-The Commission may esclude a present the migration of any hazardous concentration of that constituent in the detected constituent from the set of consutuents into ground water or surface hazardous constituents on a site specific 8"d ** wdter at any future time. In deciding whether basis ifit finds that the constituent is not ""# **'"'"" 'd to grant an esemption. the Commission will P h " '" consider-capable of posma a substantial present or P,'j,"i d buk o d 1 al o potential hazard to human health or the (a) The nature and quantity of the wast-s. conshtuent is below the value listed, or environment. In decidma whether to esclude (b) The proposed alternate design and constituents. the Commission wdi consider kl An ahernate concentration hnut operation; the following: estabbshed by the Commission. (cl The hydrogeologic setting of the facihty (a) Potential ads erse effects on ground. SBl61-The Commission wdl estabbsh a i indud'ng the attenuatne capacity and n a ter qiiality, considering- t" 5P"C'I'c alternate concentration 1imit for i thickness of the hners arid soils present a hazardous constituent as provided in (i) The ph> sical and chemical between the impoundment and ground water charactenstics of the waste in the licensed paragraph 5B(5) of this cntenon if it finds or surface water: and site, includmg its potential for migratmn. that the constituent wdl not pose a (d) All other factors whit h would innuence Inl The hydrogeological characteristics of substantial present or potential hazard to the quality and mobihty of the leachate ] the facihty and surrounding land: human health or the environment as long as q produced and the potential for it to migrate to (iii)1he quantity of ground water and the the alternate concentration limit is not < ground water or surface water. direction of ground-water Dow: a weeded in estabhshing alternate 1 5A(41-A surface impoundment must be (n) The proumity and withdrawal rates of c oncentration hmits. the Commission wdl j desoned. constructed. mamt.uned. a nd ground-water users: apply it as low as reasonably achwsable { operated to present osertopping resulting 1s1 The current and future uses of ground a titerion in to CFR 201(c). The Commission ? from normal or abnormal operat.ons. water m the area. wil! ahn consider the following fm tors
}
' s
~
I
.k
l
~
* ' Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8.1986 / Proposed Rules' 24"/11' (a) potential adverse effects on ground- SC-MAIMUM VALUES FOR GROUND-WATER (3) Dewatering of tailings by process wster quality, considering-- PROTECTION-Continued devices and/or in. situ drainage systems (At (i) The ph)sical and chemical new sites, tailings must be dewatered by a charactenstics of the waste in the licensed uneen,ent or p,apy,y drainage system installed at the bottom of the site including its pot. ntial for migration: em impoundment to lower the phreatic surface (ii) The hydrogeological charactenstics of and reduce the driving head of seepage, the facility and surrounding land: 2.4570 sam (2AST c - - - unless tests show taihngs are not amendable (iii) The quantity of ground nater and the to such a system. Where in situ dewatering is direction of gmund-water flow: Picocunse on n to be conducted, the impoundment bottom (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of coneceo resum-22s ena rua,m-22s s must be graded to assure that the drains are ground-water users; at a low point.The drains must be protected
- (v) The current and future uses of ground omne aces,arecis urene,n ecwm,.cm,ano unen pnxmmn reana and ww we e,oraans by suitable filter materials to assure that -
mesones or recon and monwn unen proemwg water in the area'. morun er,pnac meienen is drains temain free running. The drainage o (vi) The existing quality of ground water. sys em must a s be a%ately ed to i including other sources of contamination and assure good drainage). their cumulative impact on the ground-water 5D-If the ground-water protection (4) Neutralization to promote i quatity; standards estabhshed under paragraph 551) . immobilization of hazardous constituents. . (vil) The potential for health risks caused of this criterion are exceeded at a licensed site, a corrective action program must be put 5F-Where ground-water impacts are by human exposure to waste constituents: occurring at an eyisting site due to seepage. (viii) The potential damage to wildlife, in operation as soon as is practicable, and in no event later than eighteen (18) months after action must be taken to alleviate conditions crops. vegetation, and physical structures the Commission finds that the standards have that lead to excessive seepage impacts and caused by exposure to waste constituents: restore ground-water quality. ne specific (ix) The persistence and permanence of the been exceeded. The licensee shall submit the proposed corrective action program and seepage control and ground. water protection potential adverse effects. method, or combination of methods, to be (b) potential adverse effects on supporting rationale for Commission a pproval prior to putting the program into used must be worked out on a site-epecific hydraulically-connected surface water operation, unless otherwise directed by the basis. Technical specifications must be ' quality. considering- Commission.The abjective of the program is prepared to controlinstallation of seepose ' (i) The volume and physical and chemical to return hazardous constituent cxmcentration control systems. A quality assurance, testing. ' characts ristics of the weste in the licensed levels m ground water to the concentration and inspection program, whichTnclodes- i
. site: limits set as standards.The licensee e supervision by a goalified engineer or (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of '
r posed program muft address removing the scientist, must be established to' assere the ~ 1
-
- the facdity and surrounding land: [arardous constituents that have enteredspecifications the '*
(iii) The quantity and quality of ground are met. ' ' ' gr und water at the point of comphance or 50-In support of a'tallings disposst water, and the direction of ground-water flow; treating them in place.The program must also system proposal, the applicant / operator shall ' ' (iv) The patterns of rainfallin the region: supply information concern,ing the following: rfou on uen htx (1) ne chemical and rednactive (v)The proximity of the licensed site to concentration limits in ground water between characteristica of the waste solutions. surface waters: th f I nd th (2) ne characteristics of the underlying (vil The current and future uses of surface down adie acil ty roperty boundary. De soil and geologic formations particularly as waters in the area and any water quality licensee shall continue corrective action standards estabhshed for those surface measures to the extent necessary to achieve - they will control transport of contaminants watus; and maintain compliance with the ground. and solutions. nfa includes detailed (vii) The existing quality of surface water water protection standard.no Commission information concerning extent, thickness, including other sources of contamination and wdl determine when the hcensee may uniformity, shape, and orientation of the cumulative impact on surface water terminate corrective action measures based underlying strata. Flydraulic gradients and quahty; on data frorn the ground. water monitoring conductivities of the various formations must (vin) The potential for health risks caused program and other information that provide be determined.nis information must be by human esposure to waste constituents: reasonable assurance that the ground-water gathered from borings and field survey * (ix) The potential damage to wildlife, crops. protection standard will not be exceeded. methods taken within the proposed vegetation and physical structures caused by 5E-In developing and conducting ground- impoundment area and in surrounding areas
-sposure to waste constituents; and water protection programs, applicants and where contaminants might migrate to ground (s)The persistence and permanence of the licensees shall also consider the following- water. The information gathered on boreholes potential adverse effects. (1) Installation of bottom liners (Where must include both geologic and geophysical synthetic liners are used. a leakage detection logs in sufficient number and degree of SC-Maxiuuu VALUES ron GnouNo.WATEn system must be installed immediately below sophistication to allow determinmg PROTECTION the liner to ensure major fa'fures are detected sigmficant discontinuities, fractures, and if they occur. This is in addition to the channeled deposts of high hydraulic
, g ground. water monitoring progrsm conducted conductivity. If field survey methods are i ,,non as provided in Criterion 7. Where alay liners used, they should be in addition to and I are proposed or relatively thin. in.r4tu clay calibrated with borehole logging. Ifydrologic ungene sa uer sods are to be rehed upon for seepage parameters such as permeabdity may not be control, tests must be conducted with determined on the basis of laboratory
~'
representative tailings solutions and clay e.w . ._ Z io o o, materials to confirm that no sigmficant analysis of samples alone: a sufficient caew . _. _ amount of field testing (e.g pump testsi must
= . . ~ . _ . . . . _ . . deterioration of permeability or stability W ! fW in are adequately understood. Testing must be
" A*
s o$ posu o lay tola i gs I ons Tests conducted to allow estircating chemi-sorption l s*. . . .. .. Z.Z. l~.1 T oes must be run for a sufficient period of time to attentuation properties of underlymg son and taea (i n a so.to n ucmoon recon- reveal any defects if they are gome to occur i 4 se s e r a se octan v oro.s. 4.aam eaa* rock. (in some cases deterioration has been (3) Location. extent. quality, capacity and observed to occur rather rapidly after about E~72 NEacEMioasaae o cc4 nine months of exposure)). current use of any ground water at and near
- u. movvcaw m ,somen it.i.i tacmo+2.2 e* *e (2) Mdl process designs which provide the the site.
masimum practicable recycle of solutions 5H-Steps must be taken during stockpiling toed.Fradas campa.ne. er se pecece emoanet cn nc.n coos and consersation of water to reduce the net of ore to minimize penetration of ( 2 4 o is e o cmo,ece.aome.ac acan .. a oi input of liquid to the tadmgs impoundment. radionuclides into enderlying soils: suitable ( i e 9 m
. 24712' Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules methods include lining and/or compaction of V. Ilazardous Constituents Benzidine ([t.1*-Biphenyli-4.4' diamine) . ore ttorage areas. ' Cnterion n-Secondary ground-water Benzolbifluoranthene (2.3-
- 4. Criterion 6 is amended by adding protection standards required by Criterion 5 Benzolluoranthene) the following new paragraph at the end of this appendix are concentration limits for Benzo (ilfluotanthene (7.8-Benzofluoranthene) individual hazardous constituents. The Benzo {alpyrene (3.4-Benzopyrene) cf Criterion 6: following list of constituents identifies the p-Benzoquinone (1.4-Cyclohexadienedione)
Cnterion 6 * *
- constituents for which standards must be set Benzotnchloride (Benzene, trichloromethyl) ne licensee shall also address the - and complied with if the specific constituent Benzyl chloride (Benzene. (chloromethyl)-)
nonradiological hazards associated with the is reasonably expected to be in or derived Beryllium and compounds. N.O.S.8 wistes in planning and implementing closure. from the byproduct material and has been Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane (Ethane.1.1 - ne licensee shall ensure that disposal areas detected in ground water. For purposes of [methyenebis(oxyllbis[2-chloro-l) ue closed in a manner that minimizes the this Appendix. the property of gross alpha Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether. (Ethane. t.1'- - need for further maintenance. To the extent activity will be treated as if it is hazardous oxybisl2-chloro-l) nec;ssary to prevent threats to human health constituent. Thus, when setting standards N.N Bis [2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylrnine rnd the environment, the license shall under paragraph 5B(5) of Criterion 5. the (Cnlornaphazine) control. minimize, or eliminate post-closure Commission will also set a limit for gross Dis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether (Propane. 2.2*- ssc:pe of nonradiological hazardous alpha activity, oxybis[2-chloro-1) ~ conr tituents. leachaie. contaminated Bis (chloromethyll ether (Methane. r;inwater, or waste decomposition products Hazardous Constituen"s oxybisichloro'])
'o the ground or surface waters or to the Acetonitrile (Ethanenitrile) Dis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (1.2-
;mosphere. Acetophenone (Ethanone.1-phenyl) Benzenedicarboxylic acid. bis (2-ethyl-
- 5. Criterion 7 is amended by adding 3 (alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-44.ydroxycoamarin hexyl) ester) ' .
and salts (Warfarin) Bromoacetone (2-Propanone.1-bromo-) th3 following new paragraph at the end , 2-Acetylaminofluorene ( Acetamide. N-(911- Bromoacetone (Methyl bromide) of Criterion 7: fluoren-2-yli-) - 4-Bromophenyt phenyl ether (Benzene.1-Criterion 7 * *
- Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride) bromo-4-phenoxy ) .
7A-The licensee shall establish a 1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (Acetamide. N. Brucine (Strychnidin-10-cne 2.3-dimethoxy-) detection monitoring program needed to (aminothioxomethyll-) 2-Butanone peroxide (Methyl ethyl ketone. est:blish the ground-water protection Acrolein (2-Propenal) peroxide) st:pdards in paragaph 5B(1) of this appendix. Acrylamide (2-Propenamide) Butyl benzyl phthalate (1.2-A detedion monitoring program has two Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile) Benzenedicarboxylic acid. butyl phenyl- * , purposes.The initial purpose of the program
- Aflatoxina .
methyl ester)
- is ta detect leakage of hazardous ennstituents Aldrin (1.2.3.4.10.10-Hexachloro- 2-sec-Butyl-4.8-dinitrophenel (DNBp) (Phenol -
from ttie disposal area ao that the need to set 1,4.44.5A8a.8b-hexahydro-endo.exo 1.4 5.8- 2,4 dinitro 4(1-methyl-propyl)-) ground-water protection standards is Dimethanonaphthalene) Cadmium and compounda. N.O.S.* monitored. lfleakage is &tected the second A!!yl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol) . Calcium chromate (Chromic acid. calcium purpose of the program is to generate data Aluminum phosphide
- salt) cnd information needed for the Commission 4. Aminobiphenyl ([1.1' Biphenyl]-4-a mine) Calciam cyanide ta establish the standards under Criteric i 5B. 6-Amino 1.la.2.8.8a.8b-hexahydro l Carbon disulfide (Carbon bisulfide)
Thi data and information must provide a (hydroxymethyl)-sa methoxy 5-methyl- Carbon oxyfluoride (Carbor>l fluoridel i, sufficient basis to identify those hazardous carbamate azirino[2' 3':3.4lpyrrolo[1.2-a) Chloral ( Acetaldehyde. trichloro-) J constituents which require concentration indole-4.7-dione. (ester) (Mitomycin C) hmit standards and to enable the Chlorambucil (Butanoic acid. 4-[ bis (2-( Azirino[ 2'313.4 lpyrrolo(1.2-a ) indole-4.7- chloroethyllaminolbenzene-) 3mmission to set the limits for those dione. 8-amino-8[((amino-
.onstituents and the compliance period. They cabon>llaxylmethyl]-1.ta.2.8.8a.8b hexa. Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)(4.7-may also need to provide the basis for . hydro-8a methoxy-5-methy.) Methanomdan.1.2.4.5.8.7.8.8-octachloro-cdjustments to the point of compliance. For 5-( Aminomethyll-3-isoxa zolol (3(211), 3.4.7.7a-tetrahydro-)(alpha and gamma .
lic:nses in effect September 30.1983. the Isoxazolone. 5-(aminomethyl) is mers) detection monitoring programs must have Aminopyridine (4.Pyridinamine) Chlorinated benzenes. N.O.S.* been in place by October 1.1984. For licenses Chlorinated ethane. N.O.S.8 issued after September 30.1983, the detection Amitrole (1ti-1.2.4-Triazol-3-amine) Aniline (Benzenamine) Chlorinated fluorocarbons. N.O.S.8 monitoring programs must be in place when Antimony and compounds. N.O.S.: Chlorinated naphthalene. N.O.S.8 specified by the Commission in orders or Chlonnated phenol. N.0 S.' bcense conditions. Once ground-water Aramite (Sulfurous acid. 2-chloroeth 3 1. 2-[4 (1.1-dimethylethyl) phenoxyl 1 methylethyg Chloroacetaldehyde ( Acetaldehyde, chloro-) protection standards have been established Chloroalkyl ethers. N.O.S.* pursuant to paragraph 5B(1), the licensee ,ierg Arsenic and compounds. N.O S.s p-Chloroaniline (Benzenamine. 4-chloro-) sh:ll establish and implement a compliance Chlorobenzene (Benzene, chloro-) Arsenic acid (Orthoarsenic acid) rr I ance moni orin p g Arsenic pent side (Arsenic (V) oxide) Chlorobenzilate (Benzeneacetic acid. 4-s to chloro-alpha-(4 chlorophenyl)-alpha-Arsenic trioxide (Arsenic (111) cxide) i d1termine that the hazardous constituent hydroxy . ethyl ester) concentrations in ground water contiaue to Auramine (Benzenamine. 4.4. j comply with the standards set by the carbonimidoylbis[N.N-Dimethyl , p-Chloro m-cresol(Phenol. 4-chloro-3-methyll 4 Commission. In conjunction with a corrective monohydro-chloride) 1. Chloro-2.3-epoxypropane (Oxirane. 2 ; tction program. the licensee shall estabhsh Azasenne (L-Serine, diazoacetate (esterJ) (chloromethyll-) cnd implement a corrective acticn monitoring Banum and compounds. N.O.S.* 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene. (2- ! program.The purpose of the corrective action Barium cyanide . chloroethoxyl-) momtoring program is to demonstrate the Benz (clacndine (3.4-Benzacridine) Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-) affectiveness of the corrective actions. Any Benz!alanthracene (1.2-Benzanthracene) Chloromethane (Methyl cheridel < monitonng program tequired by this Benzene (C)clohexatriene) Chloromethyl methyl ether (Methane. I pmgraph may be based on existing Benzencarsonic acid (Arsonic acid. phenyl-) chloremethoxy-) i monitoring programs to the estent the Benzene. dichloromethyl-(Benzal chloride) 2-Chloronaphthalene (Naphthalene, y pi; ting programs can meet the stated Benzenethiol(Thipphenoll betachloro-) olnectne for the program. 2-Chlorophenol (Phenol, o-chloro-) , 1-( -Chlorophenyllthiourea (Thiourea. (2-
- 6. Add the following new heading and chlorophenyl)-)
- The abbrenahon N.O S. (not otherwise e new Criterion 13 at the end of spmr.edi sianJ,ee those members of the general 3-Chloropropiomtrile (Propanenitrile: 3 Appendix A to read as follows: cios noi speca catty hated by name in th s bst. chloro-1 eb
, .s..... s
.. 3 ;. f 1 .
, , . a a c; m Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules 24713 Chromium and compounds. N.O.S.* 1.2-Dichloropropane (Prnpylene dichloride) 11Diphenythydrazine (llydrazine.1.2 Chrysene (1.2.Benzphenanthrene) Dichloropropanol. N.O.S.* [ Propanol. diphenyl-) . 3 Citrus red No. 2 (2-Naphthol.1-((2.5 dichloro . N.O.S.s) Di-n-propyinitrosamine (N-Nitroso-di-n- ,
dimethoxyphenyllazol-) Dichloropropene. N.O.S.8 (Propene, dichloro , propylamine) l Disulfoton (0.0-diethyl S-[2-ethylthio) ethyl l Coal tars N.O.S.8) Copper cyanide - 1.3-Dichloropropene (1-Propene.1.3-dichloro.) phosphorodithioate) 3, Creosote (Creosote, wood) Dieldin (1.2.3.4.10.10-hexachloro-0 7-epoxy- 2.4-Dithiobiuret (Thioimidodicarbonic . 1.4.4a.5.8.7.8.8a-octa-hydro-endo, exo- diamide] ! : Cresota (Cresylic acid) (Phenol, methyl-) ' Crotonaldehyde (2-Butenal) 1.4:5.8-Dimethanonaphthalene) Endosulfan (5-Norbornene. 2.3-dimethanol. 1.2:3.4-Diepoxybutane (2.2'-Bioxirane) 1.4.5.8.7.7-hexachloro cyclic sulfite) { Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes). j N.O.S.* Diethylarsine (Arsine, diethyl-) Endrin and metabolites (113.4.10.10 . N.N-Diethylhydrazine (Hydrazine. t.2 hexachloro-6.7-epoxy 1.4.4a.5.8.7.8.8a-Cyanogen (Ethanedinitrile) diethyl) octahydro-endo. endo-1.4:5.8- l Cyanogen bromide (Bromine cyanide) 0.0 Diethyl S-methyl ester of dimethanonaphthalene, and metabolites) i Cyanogen chloride (Chlorine cyanide) Cycasin (beta.D-Glucopyranoside. (methyl- phosphorodithioic acid (Phosphorodithioic Ethyl carbamate (Urethan) (Carbamic acid. ! ONN-azoxy) methyl-) acid. 0.0-diethyl S-methyl ester) ethyl ester) 2-Cyclohexyl-4.8-dinitrophenol (Phenol. 2- O.0-Diethylphosphoric acid.0 p-nitrophenyt Ethyl cyanide (propanenitrile) - - - cyclohexyl-4.8-dinitro ) ester (Phosphoric acid. diethyl p- Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid. salts and nitrophenyt ester) esters (1.2-Ethanedlyl-biscarbamodithioic Cyclophosphamide (2H 1.31-Diethyl phthalate (1.2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, salts and esters) Oxazaphosphortne. [ bis (2 chloroethyljamino)-tetrahydro .2-oxide) acid, diethyl ester) Ethyleneimine (Aziridine) ~ Daunomycin (5.12-Naphthacenedione. (8S- O.0-Diethyl 0-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate Ethylene. oxide (Oxiranel cis)-8-acetyl 10-((3-amino-2.3.8-trideoxy). (Phosphorothioic acid. 0.0-diethyl 0 Ethylenethioures (2-Imidazolidinethione)
~
alpha-L-lyxo-hexopyranosylloxyj-7.8.9.10- pyrazinyl ester) Ethyl methacrylt te (2-Propenoic acid. 2-
. tetrahydro-6.8.11 trthydroxy 1 methoxy.) Diethylstilbesterol (4.4'-Stilbenediol, alpha. methyl ethylester) .
DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) alpha-diethyl. bis (dihydrogen phosphate. Ethyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic - (Ethane.1.1-dichloro-2.2-bis (p- (E)) acid. ethyt ester) . - i Flucranthene (Benzo [1,killuorene) . ". chlorophenyl)-) Dihydrosafrole(Benzene 1.2
. DDE (Ethylene. t.1-dichloro-2.2-bis (4- methylenedioxy-4-propyl-) Fluorine ,o. _
chlorophenyl)-) 3.4-Dihydroxy alpha-(methylamino) methyl 2-Fluoroacetamide (Acetamide. 2 fluoro.) - benzyl alcohol (1.2-Benzenediol. 4.(1- Fluoroacetic acid, sodiufn salt (Acetic acid. DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichlorothane) hydroxy-2-(methylaminolethyli-) fluoro , sodium salt) - (Ethane.1.1.1-trichloro-2,2 bis (p-chlorophenyl)-)
~
Dilsepropy! fluorophosphate (DFP) Formaldehyde (Methylene oxide) . > '
'~'
Diallate (S-(2.3-dichloroallyl) (Phosphorofluoridic acid. bis (1- Formic acid (Methanoic acidi '
- methylethyl) ester) Clycidylaldehyde (1-Propanol-2.3-epoxy) diisopropylthiocarbamate)
Dibenz"a.hjacridine (1.2.5.8-Dibenzacridine) Dimethoate (Phosphorodithlolc acid. 0.0 Italomethane. N.O.S.s { dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino)-2-oxoethyl] Heptschfor (4.7 Methano-1H indene. l Dibenz a.ilacridine (117.8 Dibenzacridine) i 1.4.5.8.7.8.8 heptachloro-3a.4.7.7a-Dibenz.a.hJanthracene (115.8 ester) ~ 3.3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1.1'-Biphenyll-4.4'. tetrahydro-) Dibenzanthracene) Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and gamma 711-Dibenzole.gicarbazole (3.4.5.6- diamine. 3-3'-dimethoxy-) p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenambe, isomers) 4.7-Methano-1H indene. Dibenzc4rbazole) 1.4.5.8.7.8.8-heptachloro-2.3-epoxy-3a.4.7.7 Dibenzo(a.elpyrene (114.5-Dibenzpyrene) N.N-dimethyl-4-{phenylazo)-) 7.12-Dimethylbenz[alanthracene (1.2 tetrahydro , alpha, beta, and gamma ! Dibenzo[a.hlpyrene (115.6-Dibenzpyrene) Benzanthracene 7.12-dimethyl-) isomers) ; Djbenzo(s.il pyrene (1.2.7.8-Dibenzpyrene) , 3.3'-Dimethylbenzidine ((1.1'-Biphenyl] 4.4. Ilexachlorobenzene (Benzene. hexachloro-) 1.2-Diluomo 3-chloropropane (Propane.1.2-diamine. 3.3'-dimethyl-) liexachlorobutadiene (1.3-Butadiene. dibromo-Schloro-1 1.113.4.4-hexachloro-) 1.2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide) Dimehtylcarbamoyl chloride (Carbamoyl chloride dimethyl-) llexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers) Dibromomethane (Methylerie bromide) Di-n-butyl phthalate (1.2-Benzenedicarboxylic 1.1-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine.1.1 (Lindane and isc ners) dimethyl-) llexachlorocyclop mtadiene (1.3-acid. dibutyI ester) ' 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine.1.2 Cyclopentadiene.1.2.3.4.5.5-hexachloro-) o-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene 1.2-dic'aloro-) 1 m-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene.1.3-dichloro-) dimethyl-) Hexachloroethane (Ethane.1.1.112.2-l p-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene.1.4-dichloro-) Dichlorobenzene. N.O.S.8 (Benzene dichloro-3.3-Dimethyl-1-(methylthio)-2 butanone. O. ((methylamino) carbonyll oxime hexachloro-) 113.4.10.10-Hexachloro-1.4.4a.5.8.8a. j hexahydro-1.4:5.8 endo. endo- t
. N.O.S 8) lThiofanox) dimethanonsphthafene (Hexachlorohexa- }
3.35Dichlorobenzidine ([1.1'-Bipheny11-4.4*- alpha. alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine ' hydro-endo. endo-dimethanonaphthalene) diamine. 3.3'-dichloro-l (Ethansmine.1.1-dimethyl-2 phenyl-) }{exachlorophene(2.2' Wthylenebis(3,4.6- < 1.4-Dichloro-2 butene (2-Butene.1.4-dichloro-) 2.4-Dimethylphenol (Phenol. 2.4-dimethyl-) trichlorophenol) , Dichlorodifluoromethane (Methane. Dimethyl phthalate (1.2-Benzenedicarboxylic llexachloropropene (1 Propene.1.113.3.3- i dichlorodifluoro-) acid. dimetnyl ester) i 1.1 Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) hexachloro-) Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid, dimethyl l{exaethyl tetraphosphate (Tetraphosphoric 1.2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) ester) acid hexacthylester) - trans-1.2-Dichloroethene (1.2 Dinitrobenzene. N.O.S.8 (Benzene, dinitro , Dichloroethylenel Hy razMe @ amine) j N O S.8) flydrocyanic acid (llydrogen cyanide) Dichloroethylene. N.O.S.8 (Ethene, dichloro . 4.8-Dinitro-o-cresol and *alts (Phenol. 2.4- liydrofluorte acid (ifydrogen fluoride) I N.O.S.8) dimtro-6 methyl . and salts) li>drogen sulfide (Sulfur hydride) 1.1 Dichloroethylene (Ethene.1.1-dichloro-) 2.4-Dinitrophenol (Phenol. 2,4-dinitro-1 flydroxydimethylarsine oxide (Cacodylic Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2.4-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene.1-methyl 2.4-2.4-Dichlorophenci (Phenol. 2.4-dichloro-) acid) dinitro-) Indeno (1.2.3-cd) pyrene (1.10-(1.2 2.0-Dich?orophenol (Phenol. 2.6-dichloro ) 2.mnitrotoluene (Benzene.1 methyl 2.6- phenylene) pyrene) 2.4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2.4-DJ. salts Iodemethane (Methyl iodide) dinitro-) and esters (Acetic acid. 2.4- Di n- ctyl phthalate (1.2-Benzenedicarboxyl.ic tron dextran l Ferric dextran) dichlorophenoxy salts and estersi acid, dioctyi ester) Isocyanic acid, methyl ester (Methyl ' Dichlorophenylarsine (Phenyl dichloroarsine) Isocyanate) 1.4-Diosane (1.4-Diethylene oxide) Dichloropropane. N.O.S.8 (Propane, dichloro . Diphenylamine (Denzenamine. N-phenyl-) Imbutsl alcohol (1. Propanol. 2-methyl-) N.O.S.5)
24714 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday. July 8,1986 / Proposed Rules Isosafrole (Benzene.1.2-methylenedioxy Nitrogen mustard N-Oxide and hydrochloride 1.3-Propane sultone (1.2-Oxathiolane,2.2 : allyl-) salt (Ethanamine. 2-chloco . N-(2 dioxide) Kepone (Decachlorooctahydro 1.3.44fethano- chloroethyl)-N-methyl . and hydrochloride n-Propylamine (1-Propanamine) 211-cy clobutaled lpentalen-2-one) salt) Propylthiouracil (Undecamethylenedismine. Lasiocarpine (2-Butenoic acid. 2-methyl . 7 Nitroglycerine (113-Propanetriol, trinitrate) N.N '-bis (2-chlorobenzyl-). dipydrochtonde) [(2.3-dihydroxy 2-(1 methoxyethyl) 4-Nitrophenol (Phenol 4-nitro-) 2-Propyn-1-ol (Propargyl alcohol) methyl 1-oxobutoxy)methylJ215.7a. 4-Nitroquinoline-t-oxide (Quinoline. 4-nitro-1 . Pyridine tetrahydro-1H-pyrrolizin 1-yl ester) oxide.) Radium'-228 and -228 1.ead and compounds. N.O.S.: Nitrosamine. N.O.S. Reserpine (Yohimban-to-carboxylic acid. Lead acetate (Aretic acid. lead salt) N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (1 Butanamine. N- 11.17-dimethyoxy 18-[3.4.5 Lead phosphate (Phosphoric acid. lead salt) butyl N-nitroso-) trimethoxybenzoylloxyj . methyl ester) Lead subacetate (taad. bis (acetato. N-Nitrosodiethanola cine (Ethanol. 2.2'. Resorcinol (1.3-Benzened.oll O)tetrahydroxytri.) (nitrosoimino) bis-) Saccharin and salts (1.2-Benzoisothiazolin hf aleic anhydride (2.5-Furandione) N-Nitrosodiethylamine (Ethanamine. N4thyl. one.1.1-dioxide, and salts) hfaleic hydrazide (1.2-Dihydro-3.8 N-nitroso-) Sa frole (Benzene.1 2-meth> lenedio xy-4-allyl-) pyridazinedione) N Nitrosodimethylamine Selenious acid (Selenium dioxide) hf alononitrile (Propanedinitrile) (Dimethylnitrosamine) Selenium and compounda. N.0 S.8 - hfelphalan (Alanine. 3-{p-bis (2- N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea (Carbamide. N+thyl. Selenium sulfide (Sulfur selenide) chloroethyllaminolphenyl .L.) N-nitroso-) Selenourea (Carbamimidoselenoic acid) hfercury fulminate (Fulmmic acid. mercury N-Nitrosomethylethylamine(Ethanamine N. Sdver and compounds.N.O.S.8 *
. salt) methyl-N-nitroso.) Silver cyanide .-
Afercury and compounds. N O.S.8 N-Nitroso-N-methylurea (Carbamide. N. Sodium cyanide Methacrylonitnle (2-Propenenitnle. 2 methyl-N nitroso-) , Streptozotocin (D-Glucopyranose. 2-deoxy 2- ] methyl-) N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane (Carbamic acid. (3-methyl-3-nitrosoureido)-) Methanethiol(Thiomethanol) methylnitroso ethylester) Strontium sulfide hfethapyrtlene (Pyridine. 2-[(2- N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Ethenamme. N. Strychnine and salta (Strychnidin-loone, and : dimethylaminolethyll-2-thenylamino-) methyl N-nitrosa-) salts) Afetholmyl ( Acetimidic acid. N- N Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine. N-nitroso. 114.5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzene.114.5-l(methylcarbamoylloxyIthio . methyl ester) I tetrachloro-) Afethoxychlor (Ethane.1.1.1-trichloro-2.2'. N-Nitrosonornicotine (Nornicotine. N-nitroso. 2.3.7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) ' bas (p methoxyphenyll-) ) , a (Dibenzo-p-dioxin. 2.3.7.8-tetrachloro-)
. 3-hfethylaziridine (1.2-Propylenimine) N-Nitrosopiperidine (Pyridine. hexahydro . N. Tetrachloroethane. N.O.S.8 [ Ethane. .
l 3-Methylcholanthrene (Benz [jlaceanthrylene. nitroso-) tetrachloro . N.O.S.s) . , 1.2-dihydro-3-methyl-) Nitrosopyrrolidine (Pyrrole. tetrahydro . N. 1.1.1.2 Tetrachlorethane (Ethane.1.1.1.2-hlethyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonochloridic nitrono.) tetrachloro-) _ acid methyl ester) N-Nitrosasarcosine (Sarcosine. N-nitroso-) 1.112-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane.1.1.2.2-4.4thfethylenebis(2 chloroanaline) 5-Nitro-o-toluidine (Benzenamine 2-methyl 5- tetrachloro-) (Benzenamine. 4.4tmethylenebis-(2-chloro-) nitro-) Tetrachloroethane (Ethene.1.112 hfethyl ethyl ketone [hfEK) (2-Butanone) Octamethylpyrophosphoramide tetrachloro-) J Afethyl hydrazine (if ydrazine, methyl.) (Diphosphoramide octamethyl-) Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 1 3 Nfethyllactonitnle (Propanenstrile. 2 Osmium tetroxide (Osmium (Vilt1 oxide) 2.3.4.8-Tetrachlorophenol (Phenol 2.3.4.6- ) hydroxy 2-methyl-) 7-Oxabicyclol2.2.1l heptane 2,3-dicarbox)lic tetrachloro-) hfethyl methacrylate (2 Propenoic acid. 2 acid (Endothal) Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate methyl . meth>l ester) Paraldehyde (1.3.5-Trioxane, 2.4& trimethyl.) (Dithiopyrophosphoric acide, tetreethy!. l Afethyl methanesulfonate (N!ethanesulfonic Parathian (Phosphorothioic acid. 0.0 diethyl ester) acid. methyl ester) 0-(p-nitrophenyllester) Tetreethyl lead (Plumbane. tetreethyl-) 2 Afethyl-2-(meth>lthiolpropion.tdehyde-o. Pentachlorobenzene (Benzene pentachloro-) Tetraethylpyrophosphate (pyrophosphoric (methylcarbon)l) oxime (Propanal. 2, Pentachloroethane (Ethane. Pentachloro-) acid, tetraethyl ester) methyl-2-(meth>lthio) O- Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) (Denzene. Tetranitromethane (Niethane tetranitro-) l(methylamino)carbony!l oxime pentachloronitro-) . Thallium and compounds. N.O.S.8 l N hfethyl N' nitro N nitrosoguanidine Pentachlorophenol IPhenol, pentachloro-) Thallec oxide (Thallium (111) oxide) (Cuanidine. N-nitroso-N methyl-N* mtro-) Phenacetin ( Acetamide. N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-) Thallium (I) acetate ( Acetic acid, thallium (1) hfeth>l parathion (0.0-dimethyl 0-(4- Phenol (Benzene, hydroxy-) salt) , nitrophen)l) phosphorothioatel Phen >lenediamme (Denzenedlamine) Thalbum (!) carbonate (Carbonic acid. I hfethylthiouracil (4-til-Pyrimidmone. 2.3- Phenylmercury acetate (Afercury. diethallium ill salt) I dih> d ro-6-meth)l-2-tbioxo) acetatophenyl-) Thallium (I) chlonde i htolybdenum and compounds. N.O.S. 8 N-Phen > Ithiourea (Thiourea, phenyl-) Thallium (I) nitrate (Nitric acid, thallium (I)
- hfustard gas (Sulfide, bis (2-chloroethyl)-) Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride) salt l Naphthalene Phosphine (ifydrogen phosphide) Thallium selenite 1.4-Naphthoquinone (1.4 Naphthalenedione) Phosphorodithioic acid. 0.0-diethyl S. Thalliuta (I) sulfate (Sulfuric acid. thallium (!)
1-Naphthylamme(alpha Napththylamine) [ethylthio] methyl l ester (Phorate) I'I
- j 2.Naphthylamme (beta Naphthylamine)
Phosphorothioic acid. O.0-dimethyl Olp.
#8" *I *" "
1 Naphthyl-2 thiourea (Thiourea.1 **'"#* ** * (f dimethyla minolsulfonyl) phen)ll ester (ifydrazinecarbothioamidel l naphthalenyl-) (Famphur) Nickel and compounds. N O.S. , Thiourea (Carbamide thio-)
% del carbonyl (Nickel tetracarbon>l) Phthalic acid esters. N.O S.8 (Benzene 1.2- Thiuram (Dis (dimethylthiocarbamoy!)
Nickel cyanide (Nickel (11) cyanide) dicarboxylic acid, esters. N O.S.8) disulfide) Nicotine and salts (Pyridine. (S)-3-(1 methyl. Phthalic anhydride (1.2 Denzenedicarbox)hc Thorium and compounds. N.O S.s. when . 2 pyrrolidinyll . and salts) acid anhydride) producing thorium by. nduct matenal
%tnc oxide (Nitrogen (II) oxide) 2 Picoline (Pyridme. 2-methyl-) Toluene (Denzene. methyl-) I p Nitroaniline (Denzenamine 4 nitro-) Polychlormated biphenyl. N O.S.: Toluenadiamine (Diaminotoluene)
Mtrobenzine (Denzene, nitro-) Pota .sium cyanide o-Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine. 2-
%Irogen dioude (Nitrogen (IV) oxide) Potassium stiver cyanide ( Argentate(1.), methyl . hydrochloride)
%trogen mustard and hydrochloride salt dicyano , potassium) Tol>lene diisocyanate (Benzene.1.3-(Ethanamme. 2-chic o . N-(2-chloroetn>l). Pronamide (3 $ Dichloro N-(1.1 dimethyl diisocyanatomethyl-)
N-meth>l . and hydrochlonde salt) propyn>l) benzamide) Toxaphene (Camphene. octachloro-) l . L
s - e Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.130 / Tuesday, July 8; 1986 / Proposed Rules ?24715
- Tribromemethane (Bromoform) period for the ANPRM was to have AD would require the addition of -
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene.1.2.4- expired on July 29,1986. KMC. Inc. and necessary hardware to protect the fuel trichloro-) Qualification of Reactor Operators shutoff handle from binding on the cabin 1.1.t-Tricloroethane (Methyl chloroform) Utility Croup (QRO) have requested a uphclstery. It has been reported that the ~ 1.1.2-Trichloroethane (Ethane.1.1.2-trichloro.) s xty-day extension of the comment upholstery can restrict movement of the period. In view of the importance of the fuel shutoff valve handle, preventing the m than io ( iol. contemplated rule, the amount of time flight crew from isolating the fuel system trichloro-) Trichloromonofluoromethane (Methane. KMC and QRO suggest is required to from the engine compartment. creating trichlorofluoro-) conduct in-depth studies and to develop an extreme hazard if the airplane 2.4.5 Trichlorophenol (Phenol. 2.4.5-trichloro-) statistical information ri. levant to the experiences an infli8h t fire or similar 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol (Phenol 2.4.6-trichloro-1 ANPRM. the NRC has decided to extend emergency. 2.4.5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2.4.5-T) the comment period for an additional DATES: Comments must be received on ( Acetic acid. 2.4.5-trichlorophenoxy ) sixty days.The extended comment 2.4.5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2.4.5- or before August 9.1986' period now expires on September 29. TP) (Silvex) (Propionoic acid. 2-(2.4.5- ADDRESSES: Lake Aircraft Division 1986-trichlorophenoxy).) Consolidated Aeronautics Incorporatedr Trichloropropane. N.O.S.8 (Propane. DATES:The comment period has been Service Bulletin No. Iba6 dated May 31, trichloro . N.O.S.8) extended and now expires September 1985, applicable to this AD may be 1.2.3-Trichloropropane (Propane.1.2.3- 29,1986. Comments received after this obtained from Lake Aircraft. Laconia thyl phosphorothioate Airport. Laconia. New Hampshire 03648: O. .O- o o bu a su e of de a o Telephone (603) 524-5868, or the Rules (Phosphorothioic acid. O.O.0-triethyl ester) cannot be given except as to comments sym-Trinitrobenzene (Benzene.1.3.5-trinitro-) received belore this date. Docket at me a&ess %w.M Trinil-azrtdinyl) phosphine sulfide comments on the proposal in duplicate (Phosphine sulfide, tris (1 aziridinyl.) ADORESSES: Send written comments or to Federal Aviation Administration. Tris (2.3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (1 suggestions on the contemplated Central Region. Office of the Regional Propanol. 2.3-dibromo , phosphate) rulemaking to the Secretary of the Counsel. Attention: Rules Docket No. Trypan blue (2.7 Naphthalenedisulfonic Commission. U.S. Nucleat Regulatory 86-CE-16-AD Room 1558. 801 East 12th acid.3.3'-[(3.3'-dimethyl (1.t'.biphenyll-4.4*. Commission. Washington. DC 20555. Street. Kansas City Missouri 64106. diyl zo) i 5-amino-4-hydroxy - Attentiom Docketing and Service Comments they be inspected at this *
~
Branch. Copies of the comments location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m Uracil mustard (Uracil 5-(bia(2- received may be examined at the NRC chloroethyl} amino-) Monday through Friday, holidays Uranium and compounds. N.O.S. Public Document Room at 1717 H Street excepted. Vanadic acid. ammonium salt (ammonium NW., Washin8 ton DC. FOnru m Eni m m cow m vandadate) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium (V) oxide) D. B. Jones. Office of Nuclear Reactor Mr. Wayne E.Cautzetti ANE-153' ew Vinyl chlo e(Ethene chloro-) Federal Aviation Administration.N Regulation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory England Region.12 New England Commission. Washington, DC 20555. Executive Park. Burlington. Zinc phosphide Telephone:(301) 492-4813. Massachusetts 01803; Telephone (617) Dated at Washington. DC, this 26th day of Dated at Washington. DC, this 1st day of 273-7102. [une.19m. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I" uclear Regulatory Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: F Samuel J. Chilk. Comments invited reta t eCommission.
'"'I M ' 8** ###"' Interested persons are invited to
[FR Dac. 86-15203 Filed 7-7-40,8 45 am) [FR Doc. 86-15324 Filed 7-7-86: 8:45 aml participate in the making of the nm J sumo coot tsso.et-u proposed rule by submitting such
* "" "'** ** " "' I 10 CFR Parts 50 and $5 they may desire. Communications ,
Degree Requirements for Senior DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION should identify the regulatory docket or Operators at Nuclear Power Plants; n tice number and be submitted in Federal Aviation Administration duplicate to the address specified Extension of Comment Period 14 CFR Part 39 above. All communications received o' n : AoENcy: Nuclear Regulatory or before the closing date for comments i Comminion- [ Docket No. 86-CE ADI specified above will be considered by ACTloN: Ads ance notice of proposed the Director before taking action on the rulemaking: Extension of comment Airworthiness Directives; proposed rule. The proposcis contained period. Consolidated Aeronautics in this notice may be changed in light of Incorporated Lake Model 250 comments received. Comments are suuuARY: On May 30,1980 (51 FR Airplanes 1%61). the NRC published for pubh,c sPecificallYinvited on the overall , comment an advance notice of proposed AoENcy: Federal Aviation regula tory, economic, environmental rulemaking (ANPRM).The ANPR.\1 Administration (FAA). DOT. and energy aspects of the proposed rule, l communicated that the Commission is ACTloN: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking All comments submitted will be contemplating an amendment to its available both before and after the ( (NPRM). closing date for comments in the Rules regulations to require, after January 1.
SUMMARY
- This Notice proposes to Docket for examination by interested 1991 that applicants for licenses as a Senior Operator of a nuclear power adopt a new Airworthiness Directive persons. A report summarizing each plant hold a baccalaureate degree in (AD). apphcabte to certain models of the FAA public contact concerned with the Consolidated Aerorautics ince.7 crated substance of this proposal will be filed engineering or physical scier.cc from an Lake Model m serias airplanes. This in the Rules Derket.
accredited ins'itution. The comme nt I s}}