ML20036A855
| ML20036A855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/13/1993 |
| From: | Surmeier J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Mathes D ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 9305170092 | |
| Download: ML20036A855 (6) | |
Text
.
arc g,
).'
j UNITED STATES y
zy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 N...../
APR 13 83 Mr. David E. Mathes, Director Division of Off-Site Remediation Office of Southwestern Area Programs Environmental Restoration Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Mathes:
Your letter to me of March 15, 1993, transmitted a draft for review by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission of the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rule entitled " Reimbursement of Costs for Remedial Action at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing Sites." Our detailed comments on the draft are enclosed.
My letter to you of January 13, 1993, which described areas where NRC could be of assistance to DOE on implementation of Title X of the National Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 1992, indicated that NRC would review the licensee's submittal and, where appropriate, would concur that the remedial action cost was necessary to ensure compliance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).
Your draft proposed rule implementing DOE's regulations that will govern this reimbursement program, defines a role for the NRC and Agreement States that is more extensive than our previous commitment.
In the past, we have not inspected reclamation work on an annual basis to a degree sufficient to make the findings that your proposal contemplates for NRC. NRC intends to rely on records of implementation of QA/QC programs, as-built drawings, and completion reports, as well as inspections on a periodic basis (not necessarily annually), to make the reasonable assurance determination for license termination that compliance with all applicable regulatiens has been met. We will be able to certify that the work for which reimbursement is claimed is appropriate to comply with UMTRCA and whether it is inclokd under an approved reclamation plan.
We are discussing this issue with NRC's Office of the General Counsel and, based on their response, may have additional comments which will be provided to you at a later date.
130014 q
pf d lL-l J
9305170092 930413
%b PDR WASTE i
l 1
David E. Mathes 2
i You should be aware that there may be separate NRC plan approvals for mill decommissioning, tailings reclamation, and groundwater clean-up (Corrective I
Action Plan).
l.;
We will be glad to discuss this in more detail if you desire.
5 Sincerely, j
i F-WWWAl. SIGNED BY l
John J. Surmeier, Chief r
Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards q
Enclosure:
As stated i
i MWEsiillEB6AssnisVC6hEUffehss?B16Ef6'Difins?Didribufi"66' C6pfiPFifEFihifi?
Is "imal l' B6 Ton ~"0FCi" ^ 11iie'"intiF: "C T C6vif~ E" = CoVWT E6cl osuri" N"=~ No"C65y
)
W
.. e 0FC N
6 lbR E
LtuRQ1 E Y[rL e /E NAME
'AMukf[ns/eb MFliegel JSurmefer K//AI/
l DATE If //9/93
//
4 /13/93
/4 L//IS/93
'/ / /z/93 //
/ /93 S:\\LLWMTYPE\\EDIE\\DOETTLX.MHF M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on "DATE:" line enter:
i s
PDR : YES M
NO Category: Proprietary or CF Only-ACNW: YES _g - NO Delete file after distribution Yes No IG: YES N0 A
j
-i DISTRIBUTION: Central! File' LLWM r/f PLohaus RBangart WBrach JAustin l
NMSS r/f LJCallan,RIV RHall,URF0 i
i l
l
l COMMENTS ON 10 CFR PART 765 REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS OF REMEDIAL ACTION AT ACTIVE URANIUM AND THORIUM PROCESSING SITES Page 11, last paragraph, i
The numbers used in the illustration of the maximum reimbursement amount are unrealistically high by up to an order of magnitude.
A more realistic assessment of the tctal potential reimbursement amount would i
be more informative.
i l
Page 12, 1st full paragraph, Same comment as for Page 11.
Page 13, paragraph (a),
For completeness, the $5.50 per ton limitation on reimbursement should be cited.
Page 14, 1st full paragraph through Page 15, DOE states that it will reimburse for the full costs of reclamation work performed after 2001. A licensee could defer work to this time period based on the prospects of receiving full reimbursement rather than the formula percentage. This section should be redrafted to reflect page 66 which clarifies that the full costs are reimbursed only up to the
+
ceiling amount.
Page 39, last paragraph, indicates that this approach provides an incentive for a licensee to perform remedial action as soon as feasible.
It appears that it could work to the contrary.
Page 66, This clarifies the above comments. The above sections should be redrafted for clarity.
Page 17, 1st full paragraph, 2nd sentence, l
The implied definition of byproduct material is in conflict with that used by NRC. While DOE does not want to consider contaminated material as part of the " tailings", this exclusion can be simply stated by defining tailings as that granular material remaining after extraction of uranium or thorium from ore and which was disposed of in a tailings impoundment.
i See also related comments on pages 30 and 53.
l i
t
m l
i Page 30, 2nd full paragraph, 7th line, j
This clearly establishes groundwater cleanup and treatment of l
contaminated soil as allowable activities for reimbursement.
l T
Without the suggested change on Page 17, there would be some question as to its eligibility.
I See related comment on page 53.
i Page 34, 1st paragraph,
\\
A copy of the " approved site reclamation plan or other written authorization from NRC or an Agreement State" is required to be i
submitted with a reimbursement claim. Reclamation plans can be quite voluminous with multiple volumes, maps, and supporting documentation.
l In addition, they are often repeatedly altered over time to reflect changes required by site characteristics or in application of regulatory requirements.
You may not want a copy of the reclamation plan in light
.i of the detail and instead rely on NRC or Agreement State input. Day i
56, paragraph (c)(1) also indicates a copy of the reclamation ply by 1
be provided. See comment under the last paragraph under this pagc
)
reference.
1 1
f 3rd paragraph,1st four lines, i
Claims are to be "... submitted semi-annually on or before February 1 or August 1 of each year, beginning in 1995." However, the initial claim 3
is to be "... submitted on or before February 1,1994." The reason for the 1994 initial claim submittal date in relation to the 1995 dates j
should be explained as its purpose is not clear.
-j t
3rd paragraph, sentence beginning on 5th line,
-l The sentence states that " NRC or an Agreement State must concur that t
b remedial action for which reimbursement is claimed has been completed in accordance with applicable requirements,..." NRC can certify that the work described in the claim submitted for payment is appropriate under the approved reclamation plan. Subject to budget restraints and 1
. inspection scheduling, NRC may be able to certify that the work i
submitted for reimbursement was performed and that it was-done under an approved QA/QC plan.
Page 35, 1st line, l
L Licensees are to submit only one claim per year "after a site review by i
NRC or the Agreement State." This language would require NRC or the l
Agreement State to make site reviews on a schedule to fit the
{
requirements of the licensee's submittal. DOE could rely on a j
certification from NRC or an Agreement State that the work claimed was j
i 2
i l
J
o r
appropriate and substantially required under the approved reclamation plan but that it had not necessarily been inspected by such regulatory authority. See comment under Page 34, 3rd paragraph.
Page 38, last paragraph, For costs to be approved and reimbursed under the Subsequent Remedial Action, they must be incurred pursuant to a decommissioning and reclamation plan approved by DOE. DOE should consider relying on NRC's plan approval so there will be no dual regulatory authority with the resulting potential conflict.
i Page 47, first paragraph, states that costs must be "in accordance with a plan for decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action approved by the Secretary." The same comment made for Page 38 would equally apply here.
Page 50, 3rd paragraph, defines the " Plan for subsequent remedial action" and the 4th paragraph defines " Reclamation plan." These definitions clarify the plan approvals and indicate that DOE will approve a plan incorporating an estimated total cost for remaining remedial actions to be performed after December 31, 2002.
The intent appears to be to approve the remaining costs pursuant to a technical plan previously approved by NRC or an Agreement State. The previous references on Pages 38 and 47 should be changed accordingly.
Page 39, see comment under Page 14 reference Page 47, see comment under Page 38 reference Page 50, see comment under Page 38 reference Page 53, This section needs to be revised as suggested under Page 17 reference.
Page 54, paragraph (f), 3rd line, change "an active" to "a licensed."
Page 56, add at the end of (c)(1)
The licensee shall certify that work was completed as described in an approved reclamation plan and that a quality assurance program sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the reclamation construction was-implemented.
Page 59, change paragraph (d) to read as follows, (d) Upon receiving any additional documentation requested and submitted in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c), DOE shall conduct a final review of all submitted information prior to making a reimbursement decision. As a part of this final review, DOE shall 3
i i
. '. ~.
d request from NRC or an Agreement State, written concurrence that the activities for which reimbursement is claimed h::: 5: n ::nda:ted in l
- rd:nce with the require :nt; cf th: :ite'; re:: dial :: tion plan *isd cert i fied f 697 thill isessee fis? being lfaetually?ceFrect# ire "s;ibs tanti al ly i
ini conformance wi th : the J icensee 's 0 approved recl amation p1 ariF DOE lhal l not provide reimbUriement" for colti incuFred' for any'~ activity for which
~
such concurrence is not received.
Add to end of paragraph (e),... DOE will provide written notification to the applicant if an extension is necessary.
i Page 66, paragraph (b),
[
}
See comments for Pages 14 and 39. This section clarifies that the total amount to be paid for subsequent remedial action is limited to the amount determined under the ratio formula for total reclamation costs i
prorated over that incurred for tailings produced from the sale of i
uranium to the government.
j i
i i
i I
l-I a
a l
i i
b.
4 i
i f
+