ML20004E626
| ML20004E626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1981 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004E600 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-38 NUDOCS 8106120408 | |
| Download: ML20004E626 (12) | |
Text
.-
7590-1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT WM-38 ANACONDA COPPER COMPANY NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP REQUIREMEflT FOR THE RHODE RANCH PROJECT IN McMULLEN COUNTY, TEXAS The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is issuing a determination on a request for exemption from the land ownership transfer requirement of the Uranitsn !!ill Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-604) made by the Anaconda Copper Company for f-their proposed Rhode Ranch project in McMullen County, Texas. This
/
action is being taken under Section 202(a) of P.L.95-604, which authorizes the NRC to grant exenption from land ownership transfer requirements where it finds this will not endanSer public health and safety. This action only applies to the federal land ownership requirement. The State of Texas as an Agreement State has the responsibility in licensing the proposed project.
l l
The staff has detemined that sufficient grounds exist for dispensing l
with the government land ownership requirement subject to the conditions stated in the environmental assessment. The case is a unique one where the tailings will be dewatered and returned to the original ore zone which is virtually free of any groundwater. More specifically, the tailings will be buried at least 30 and as much as 120 feet below the l
- :o
. w.w r y
] E..
OFF!CIAL RECORD COPY
"+*
L i
L.
f f
2 surface. The closest significant groundwater bearing stratigraphic unit in underlying femations is isolated by a massive clay strata which is a minimun of about 500 feet thick. The femations at the site have high clay content which should preclude infiltration of precipitation, and as an added measure, the tailings will be encapsulated by low permeability liners. The staff has concluded that long tem surveillance and monitoring of the disposal site will not be needed to assure stability and isolation of the tailings impoundmer.c.
The detemination will take effect 30 days from the date of this notice, and during the interim the NRC will accept coments on the proposed action. Written comments concerning the proposed action should be submitted to the Secretary of the Comission, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, Washington, D.C.
20555.
The environmental assessment and copies of written coments will be available for public inspection and copy!r.9 at the Conr11ssion's public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555.
p Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland, this '16tti day of May,1981.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPt!ISSION i
Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch REV. NO.1 - 5/14/81 -- MAG II Division of Waste Manansient l
- m wMua...
!. m R.f r J. M.l.
.i.ELDd h M.W@ R,,
l =~HP,F,i),he,t:,@,,,,[SA,nas ta s i,,,yh d,n,,,
AFo,@t,,,,,JAS,carano l
""ds/M. /8,1
,, 5/i1 /,81,,,,,,sg/,81
, / '3 81/,,,,,,5/,$,/81 S
l 4..e r:=u me no ec. acu e: to OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
),
PROJECT WM-38 ANACONDA LAND OWNERSHIP EXEMPTION REQUEST-RESPONSE TO TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH COMMENTS ON PRC+0 SED NRC CRAFT REPORT AND CONDITIONS (LETTER FROM E. BAILEY OF DECEMBER 6, 1980) l Relationship of This Action to Texas Licensino I
Several of the Texas comments are related to the scope of the NRC's action on this exemption request, particularly as it affects Texas licensing authority and responsibilities in the case.
Texas wi.ll have the same full authority and responsibility in licensing the proposed Anaconda project that it would have with any new mill project in the State. Tr.ase authorities and responsibilities and hence the scope of Texas licensing review, are in no way diminished by the direct NRC involveme nt in this case.
As indicated in Section 1.2 of the report, the Texas review will have to include evaluation of all public health and safety and environmental protection aspects of mill operations. This includes, for example, evaluation of occupational safety and the matters identified in Section 274(o)(3)(C) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA):
(a) radiological and nonradiological impacts to public health and human environment; (b) assessment of impacts to groundwater; (c) assessment of alternative sites and engineering methods; and (d) consideration of long term impacts, including decommissioning, decontamination and reclamation impacts, associated with activities to be conducted pursuant to mill license, including the management of mill tailings (byproduct material).
Also, as was indicated in Section 1.2, the state, being responsible for licensing of the proposed (source material) operations and tailings (byproduct material) disposal operations, must complete the documented, independent assessment called for by Section 274(o)(3) of the AEA. The staff expects that this written assessment, after being circulated for public review and comment, will be the basis for Texas ifcensing action.
The state may wish to supplement its full evaluation of alternatives with the NRC report. However, as noted in the staff's Anaconda report, the present NRC action is based upon the assumption that on of the proposed disposal programs is the one licensed by Texas. This NRC determination in no way determines the conclusions of state of Texas licensing process.
NRC involvement in this case is limited solely to the question of land i
l ownership transfer requirements. As stated in the report (Section 1.2),
exemption from such requirements hinges on the fundamenital question of whether ongoing, post-operational monitoring is needed. Therefore, the l
NRC staff review has evaluated those aspects of the proposed project 1
4 8
2
T.-
- nr'
- ~ -
.f t.
2-which relate to long-term isolation of tailings.
Furthermore, the staff will stipulate specific conditions of design and operation which will l
assure that no ongoing, surveillance will be r.equired at the site.
Because the Texac licensing of the facility will necessarily include review of the same matters of long-term stability and isolation, the staff considers it appropriate to have Texas followup to see that the c
terms and conditions of the NRC exemption are carried out during the construction and operational phase of the project.
Therefore, rather than requirn NRC approval of the various technical specifications and procedure:, as previously specified, the conditions have been revised to state that Texas should give such approvals. While only NRC can make the determination regarding land ownership exemption (583.b of AEA) and make the final determination that the operator has met all applicable standards before a license is terminated (133.c of AEA), Texas followup on the conditions being specified by the staff can be done in connection with its normal licensing activity. The staff has stipulated minimum i
requirements that should be developed in the detailed design, construction and operational aspects of the proposed project; therefore, receipt of the requisite final design, specifications and procedures approved by Texas for information only would be sufficient involvement on the part of NRC until the time that license is to be terminated and NRC must make its AEA $83.c determination. If changes to the minimum conditions specified by NRC are considered necessary, NRC approval of such changes must be obtained.
1.
Page 20, IA The saturated hydraylic conductivity critical point should obviously read "more than 10~ cm/s" in (1) and (2) instead of "less than..."
Response
Comment incorporated.
2.
Page'20,IA(1) j It is unclear why sand lenses or patches of the gyt bottom with a saturated hydraulic conductivity of more than 10 cm/s must be covered with lining material if the side-wall liner is keyed into a i
l so w
e v ow -em e
.-ee--~~e n---<-~me
<-aree-e
-4~
S.**.
j basal clay horizong which meets the 10-7 cm/s criterion.
This in i
effect creates a " bowl" and whether or not a bowl will hold liquid is not affected by placing a lump of sugar or a spoonful of sand into the bowl.
Response
In the recent meeting between Anaconda and the NRC (February 5, 1981) the issue of seepage through sand lenses exposed on the proposed pit bottom was discussed.
It is Anaconda's position that excayation of the pit would not lead to exposure of any sa'id lenses that are not underlain by basal clay units into which sidewall Itners are keyed. As long as this condition is met, we would not require that sand lenses in the pit bottom be lined.
3.
,Page 20, 18(4)
If the "... underlying... clay formations" have a thickne:s of greater than three feet as required by 1A(1), we see no need to entrench the sidewall liners into it "at least 3 feet." A two-foot entrenchment would appear adequate to ensure continuity of the liner.
' Response The important thing is that in transition zones, there be continuity of liner material having hydraulic conductivity properties equivalent to those of the installed liner. This would not occur if lining were done as proposed by Anaconda. We agree the desired continuity can be assured with less than the full 3 feet of entrenchment called for, and an appropriate change has been made to Condition 1(B)(4) (old numbering) to reflect this.
4.
Page 21, IC In discussions with Anacendt personnel, they have told us that they have difficulty with the pnraseology " segregated during stripping, handling, stockpiling, and installation" since they do not intend t
- b o
e.
'l t
..+
r to " stockpile" liner material but rather continuously place it as they mine and therefore could be caught in non-compliance because 8
they did not " stockpile" the liner materials. They would prefer that the words " selectively mined" be used instead of the current phrase. Since the end objective is the same, i.e. to ensure that n
the proper liner material is used, I see no reason why the wording i
should not be changed as Anaconda has suggested.
l
Response
It is recognized that Anaconda's plan is to place the liner as borrow material is excavated. However, it is possible that mining activities do not permit this all of the time and second handling of materials is required. The condition is intended to cover only such situations and changes have been made in the condition to reflect this.
5.
'Page 21, 2A We object to the use of the term "geotechnical engineer" and the failure to mention several other " professionals" that may be qualified to supervise the installation of the liner.
"Geotechnical engineers" are not recognized as a distinct type of engineer by the Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, and this apparently a title used by the NRC contractor and his school but rarely recognized elsewhere. Other categories of professionals that might be appropriate to add are geological engineer, civil engineer, soils scientist, etc. We also feel that the professional should be one licensed /registerei by the State of Texas and approved by this Agency.
' Response A change has been made to resolve this conmment and to be consistent with technical qualifications as they haya been stated by the staff in other cases.
,-v
~-
yem p re --gn m-m w c-mn.
-~
wr-~~--
-ew ec.
..-..-m,-e~=-m--~-~~.
+ -
t 5-T 6.
Page 21, 2B Subparagraphs (2) and (3) appear to be somewhat duplicative; it is unclear why both testing programs on installed liner materials are necessary to determing the permeability cfJ.iner materials.
The sampling size (500 yd ) in 2B(3) appears in'be quite small (i.e., a sample on an array with not more than 22h yards between sampling points) and is inconsistent with the samplino interval in 2B(2),
't.e., 5000 cubic yards. It is also of interest why a falling hcad permeameter test must be conducted instead of allowing the flexibility of using a constant head tast. An experienced analyst who is familiar with the soils in question can quite accurately correlata the data from one test to another.
Response
The most accurate method of determining hydraulic conductivity of a material if through direct permeability testing. A less costly but less accurate method is to estimate conductivities indirectly through correlations with measured soil properties (such as moisture, density, Atterberg limits, etc.). The logic of the test program is to avoid the unnecessary expense which would occur relying only on permeability testing, by specifying a mix of test methods.
The staff has concluded that based on a good correlation between permeability and the required soils indices, the level of prescribed permeability testing supplemented by more frequent soils index testing will provide adequate assurance that natural liners meet hydraulic conductivity design requirements.
The frequency of testing prescribed is based upon the following factors:
(1) consideration of the degree of difficulty and cost of the tests, (2) experience with liner testing and inspection programs at other mill sites as documented in construction reports, (3) general guidance given in the geotechnical literature, and (4) the specific geohydrologic conditions at the proposed tailings sites, as described in Section 2 and 4 of this report.
Since the draft which was commented on was prepared, the staff has L
further developed its position and obtained additional experience regarding quality assurance testing and inspection related to seepage control systems On the basis of this, the staff has e
t e
7' h
6-i 1
determir.ed that the specific testing and inspection levels should be revised; generally, they are less stringent than those inititlly specified.
Falling head permeametcr tests are inhemmt.i ree accurate when measuring conductivity of Icv permeability materials than constant head tests.
(See, Tor examp le, R. A. Freeze and J. A. Charry, Groundwater, Prentice Hall,1979, p. 336; and A. R. Jumikis, Soil Mechanics, Van Nostrano, 1965, pp. 266 and 269). Also, it is noted that all testing performed so far by Anaconda consultants has utilized this method.
7.
Page 22, 2C Both subparagraphs (2) and (3) again refer to " falling head" tests; our previous comments regarding falling vs. constant head tests would apply here also.
In subparagraph (2, there is yet another different sampling interval (i.e., 2500 yd}); it appears inconsistent that installed and " natural" lining materici must be sampled at different intervals.
Response
See response to comment 6 above. The problems associated with inspection of in-situ materials are fundamentally different than those related to installed liners. In the latter case, the liner consists of relatively homogeneous material which has known properties and which is placed in a controlled manner. The testing and inspection requirements for these two cases are, therefore, different in nature and scope.
8.
'Page'22, 3 a.
It would appear that this whole section should be prefaced by some statement like, "If tailings are returned to the open pit I
e ag s
m
- =
I mine as a slurry..." Clearly the requirements cf paragraph 3 do not apply, in toto, if " dry" tailings are returned to the mine.
b.
We are also somewhat concerned that only NRC is referenced in this section; we feel a joint NRC/ Texas approval should be stated as being required. Here as elsewhere in the document, the NRC is in' essense taking over the control of the operation or exempting it from regulation by the State of Texas. All operational aspects of the project should be by NRC requirement mandate concurrence from the State of Texas.
(This state concurrerce policy should probably be stated up front as a condition of exempting this operation from pursuant to Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended.)
' Response Item a - It is now understood that Anaconda is considerirg saveral o)tions regarding the disposal of tailings. One option is to place tiem in the pit in a slurry form.
If this method is used, an underdrain dewatering system must be installed. Anothcr option being explored is tne incorporation of a belt filter circuit in the milling process. Anaconda has reported that tailings treated in this ' manner could have a moisture content of as little as 25%.
In the event that it can be deomnstrated that tailings treated by belt filter, and deposited as proposed by Anaconda, will not become re-saturated upon compaction (which will occur due to backfilling),
the underdrain system would not be necessary. Our report has been revised to reflect this rationale.
Item b - Ses the general discussion on the relationship of this NRC action and to Texas licensing.
9.
Page 23, 4 This requirement does not seem to fit the mode of liner installation and mine back-filling thac we had understood ~ Anaconda had proposed.
It is our understanding that Anaconda will be continuously placing
.s
T p..
T.
~.
liners and back-filling the mine throughout the life o'f the mine and that staged installation of lining materials and tailings will not occur.
Respnnse See response to Comment 4.
- 10. Page 23, 5 We do not understand the requirement for a 50-foot thick minimum cover over the tailings and therefore cannot accept it a priori.
Since the radiological properties of the tailings are not enhanced during the milling process over the same properties of the ore, it seems that returning the tailings to as as minimum the same depth as the place of deposition in nature of the ore would be appropriate.
The cover requirement derived from the GEIS would be acceptable as a " minimum depth" even if the ore had resided at a shallower depth.
Response
The rationale for this requirement is spelled out in Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
Deep burial is one of the prime features which distinguishes this case from other programs approved by the Commission, (including those below grade in mine pits), where land ownership transfer has been required. This feature is, as stated in the report in Section 1.2, one of the key factors which cause the staff to receive and agree to review the exemption request.
Recent information from Anaconda suggests that in some places the ore is as shallow as 25 feet, although the average depth is abotit 100 feet. With the stipulation that tailings will be placed r.o closer than 30 feet from the surface, the conditions for exemption now state that the tailings will be returned to approximately the same depth below the surface as original are and will be deposited in approximately the same thickness as the original ore.
-_p
v
.T.
i
.~
'! ' ~
- 11. Page 24, 7 I
a.
This requirement appears to be too general in many respects and yet quite restrictive with regard to the creation of a depression that resulted in impounament af: surface water flow and runoff. We do not concur that the formation of a depression is all bad; it may in fact be a desirable feature by creating a depositional environment over the buried tailings rather than an erosional environment that would be created by mounding the area. Since there is no discussion of the pros and cons regarding this issue, we feel it is inappropriate to address it in the present list of requirements.
b.
We find it disconcerting that no groundwater monitoring program is called for in the list of requirements.
Such a program should be called for during the operational life of the project.
It may well be that the "best laid plan of mice and men" will still result in unacceptable groundwater effects.
It would seem pr;: dent that, if these were detected early (or even later) in the life of the project, one would be able to stop a disposal procedure and withdraw an exemption from the further disposal of tailings.
Therefore, we feel a specified monitoring program should be delineated as a condition of exemption.
c.
Several times in the body of the document, reference is made to the selection of an " alternate" disposal method during the process of licensing by the State of Texas. We are not sure that just "any" alternative can be chosen; it would appear that only an alternative with less perceived impact could be chosen.
It would the logically follcw that disposal method should be eligible for exemption. On the other hand, if the present proposed method is deemed good enough to warrant the exemption, it would appear to be a great waste of time, money, and manpower to develop and evaluate less acceptable (or even equally or better) alternatives.
i
_ Response Item a - The rationale for this position is discussed in Section 4.1.
Because of the thick cover, the matter of potential erosion is of far less concern in this project than potential groundwater seepage (see Sections 4.2 and 4.4). Therefora, there is much greater benefit to be obtained from the stipulated action than from creating a depositional environment.
s
't e
.we r, - - -, -,,
w,,,-.,,, - -..w,,-n
--,-,a
-~,,,,,,,.v.,,,
--w.----w n.--,,.-,,-
---e.--,-,-,g---m e--
-,e---
,-,----,n
--n--
I r
1*
10 -
Item b - As stated in Section 1.2 and the Summary, the fundamental i
question upon which the staff's determination will hinge is whether ongoing, post-coerational monitoring (see Chapter 10 of NUREG-0706)
I is needed.
If any post-operational monitoring is found to be l
necessary, land ownership transfer requirements could not be exempted.
long-term site surveillance and land ownershii~g the rationale for (See also NUREG-0706, Section 12.3.12 concerdo transfer requirements).
Therefore, the staff evaluation and stipulations are aimed at the matter of isolating the tailings over the long-term, after mill operations cease. This has included specifying quality assurance, testing and inspection requirements for installation of seepage -
control systems and maximum tailings disposal moisture levels which must be achieved before termination of license should be granted to Anaconda.
As stated in the general discussion, through its Agreement State authorities, Texas will be exclusively responsible for those aspects of the proposed Anaconda project which are related strictly to mill operations. Section 1.2 has been revised to indicate this more clearly than before and, in general, to define the scope of this NRC action. The staff expects that groundwater monitoring will be performed during the operational phase of the project. This is required by(NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 and by new uranium milling regulation Appendix A to 10 CFR 40).
As stated in the report, the staff considers that the exemption calls for ample margins of safety and assurance that the tailings and associated contaminant; will remain isolated.
If Anaconda cannot, in fact, obtain titie to the land to permit ongoing surveillance, it may be too late to find out surveillance is needed after many tons of tailings are disposed of in the pits.
For this reason, the staff has placed primary emphasis on establishing what the final, reclained site conditions should be and has not stipulated an operational groundwater monitoring program.
Item c - See the general discussion on the relationship of this NRC action to the Texas licensing above).
4
-4 e
....-4.
..w.
, _,