ML20042F699
| ML20042F699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/30/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR3970, RULE-PR-40 PR-900130, NUDOCS 9005090274 | |
| Download: ML20042F699 (34) | |
Text
I-
[7590-01)
DOCKET WM82 PROPOSED RULE k-YO M3 L
WO) 00CNErro 05NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
'90 FEB -2 41 M3 10 CFR Part 40 RIN:
3150-AC56 fSf[db Ty Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings-Sites AGENCYi Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue general licenses that would permit NRC to license the custody and long-term care of-reclaimed or closed uranium or thorium mill tailings. sites after remedial action or closure under the Uranium Mill-Tailings Radiation Control Act have been completed. The intended effect of this action is to provide a surveillance procedure to ensure continued protection of the public health and safety and the environment. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of Titles I and 11 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued'on August 25, 1988.
DATE: Comment period expi es APR 2 3 1990 Comments-received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 4
. Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or
.before this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to: One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, i
between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
Comments received, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and the regulatory analysis can be examined at: The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DCi 9005090274 900130 M Td PC$-
'(
B/0[90 '
)
t FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Haisfield. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 20555, Mail Stop NLS 260. Telephone (301) 492-3877.
SUPPLCMENTARY INFORMATION:
~
1.
Backgrouno.
Proposed Action.
III.
Uranium Mill Tailings-Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988.
IV.
The Stabilization and Long-Term Care Program (Title I and Title II).
V.
TheLong-TermSurveillancePlanlittle1.andTitleII).
VI.
Future Uses of the Disposal Site.
VII.
Response to issues for Comment.
VI!!. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
IX.
Petition for Rulema king.
X.
EPA Clean Air Act Activities.
XI.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability.
X11.
Papenvork Reduction Act Statement.
Xill. Regulatory Analysis.
XIV.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement.
XV.
Backfit Analysis.
XVI.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40.
?-
1.
Background-In the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of-1978 (UMTRCA) the Congress recognized that uranium mill tailings may pose a potentially signi-ficant radiation health hazard to the public. One of the measures enacted by Congress to control this hazard is to place the long-term care of the uranium or thorium mill tailings disposal site, after completion of all remedial actions or closure, in the hands of State or Federal government.
Title I of UMTRCA defines the statutory authority and roles of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the NRC with regard to the remedial action program for inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title I requires that, upon 2
I
completion of the remedial action program by DOE, these sites be cared for by the DOE or other Federal agency designated by the President, under a license issued by the Comission.
Title II of UMTRCA contains similar requirements for KFC licensing of presently active uranium or thorium mill tailings sites following their closure and license terminat' ion. These sites would be licenseo by the Commission upon their transfer to the Federal Government or the State in -
which they are located, at the option of _the State.
These proposed regulations will complement other UMTRCA required regulations which have been completed and cover activities through closure.
An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32396) in which the NRC requested comments on this proposed rulemaking and three specific topics. No comments were received specifically addressing these topics.
11.
Proposed Action The proposed regulatory additions to Part 40 will provide for two new general licenses.
The general licenses in 140.27 an'd.l40.28 will correspond to Title I and Title II of UMTRCA, respectively.
The provisions in 140.27 would apply to inactive sites and the provisions in 640.28 would apply to active sites. Although the requirements in $40.27 and 140.28 will differ somewhat due to the differences in Title I and Title II of the Act, the goals to be achieved by the long-term care licensee are the same.
^
These pfoposed r'egulations deal only with uranium or thorium mili tailings
~
sites after remedial actions (fo'r Title I) or closure activities (for Title II) have been completed to meet applicable closure standards. UMTRCA stipulates the Federal government (normally DOE) as the long-term care licensee, and thereby the owner, except in the case of a Title II site where the State may elect to be the long-term care licensee.
In lieu of any such State election, the Federal government will become the long-term care licensee. The NRC will receive a detailed Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) from DOE or an appropriateStatewhichwilldiscussownership(whetherFederalorState), site conditions, the surveillance program, required follow-up inspections, and how and when emergency repairs and, if necessary planned maintenance, will be 3
1 i
accomplished.
- Unless the Consission is. formally notified by the appropriate State, the DOE will submit the LTSP and will be the long-term care licensee.
(See the section trtitled *The Long-Term Surveillance Plan.") The general license will beenrse effective for each individual Title l'or Title II' site upon l
NRC receipt of an LTSP that meets the requirements of the general license and either NRC concurrence in completion of remedial actions (Title I site) or termination of the Title !! site license.
L i
l For sites governed by the provisions of $40.27 (Title I sites), the general license applies only to the DOE or another Federal agency designated by the President.
For sites governed'under the provisions of $40.28 (Title-II sites), DOE, or another Federal agency, will prepare and-submit the LTSP, unless the State, at its option, decides to take custody.'of the site and be incluced in the general license.
In the latter case the State would prepare
[
and submit the LTSP. The authority to grant a long-term care license is reserved to the NRC.
States may be the long-term care agency, but are not' authorized to grant this type of license.
(See Section 83 b(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 150.15a.)
The general licensees for long-term care are exempted from 10 CFR. Parts 19, 20, and 21. These parts cover notices, instructions, notifications to workers, and inspection in Part 19, standards for protection against radiation in Fart 20, and reporting of defects and noncompliance in Part 21. ~ These parts ceal with operational activities. A general license for long-term care covers
^
_ J' activities af ter-the. operation and clean-up of the site has been completed.
i Under normal circumstances the long-term care licensee will spend a day or two at each site each year to confirm that the site's conditions-are as expected.
The site will comply with 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A, B, and C (for Title I l
sites) and 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A criteria (for Title II sites), which essentially eliminate direct radiation and air particulates and control radon releases within specified limits. Site closure will, therefore, eliminate the need for specific radiation controls as specified in Parts 19, 20, and 21 under norr:a1 conditions.
l-If damage to the site requires significant repairs, then the long-term care licensee'must notify NRC and describe the necessary repairs. Since worker 1
4
q l
l radiation protection and occupational exposure reporting may be necessary during such repair efforts, the long-term care Itcensee will identify the appropriate recuirements of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 21 to be applied.
NRC may then irpose appropriate portions of the above parts or regulations by order on e site specific basis depending upon the damace and the type of repairs recessa ry.
A minor administrative change is being made to 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A i
Criterion 12 to allow for a more efficient reporting program.
Criterion 12 states that inspection results must be reported to the Comission within 60 days following each inspection.
Because each long-term care licensee, primarily the Department of Energy, wiii most likely have multiple sites, we are preposing to allow annual reports which will cover all sites under their jurisdiction. Any site where unusual damage orl disruption is discovered during the inspection, however, would require a preliminary site inspection report to be submitted within 60 days. The timing for submittal of the annual report will be based on when the long-term care. licensee will be doing the inspections and will be submitted within 9'O days of the date of the annual inspection of the last site inspected.
Criterinn 12 only deals with Title II licensees.
The long-term care l
licensee for Title I should have comparable reporting requirements, which will be specified in the Long-Term Surveillance Plan.
There are some differences in requirements for sites located on Indian
) ~
1
. lands. For. Title-I sites,_.the ownership of that-site will remain with the tribe. The NRC and DOE have generally agreed that sites.on~ Indian lands should be handled in the same manner as other Title I sites, including conduct of surveillance under proposed $40.27. We also understand that DOE and the appropriate Indian tribes have agreed that DOE would provide for long-term care.
Four of the 24 Title I sites are on Indian lands.
For Title 11 sites on Indian lands it is not clear who will be responsible for monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures at the site.
Currently,
the Western Nuclear Sherwood Uranium Mill located in the State of Washington is the only site that falls-into this category. UMTRCA provides that long-term l
5
surveillance will be done by the Federal government and that the licensee will be required to enter into arrangements with the Commission to ensure this surveillance.
However, UMTRCA was not explicit as to which Federal agency is
.esponsible for the site, anc should this site ever require emergency measures, additional authorizations may be required. "The basic obligations for this site have already been codified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A Criterion 11F, and are not part of this rulemaking. NRC is providing flexibility in this area and will work out long-term care arrangements for these sites or a ca.se-by-case basis.
Both 140.27 and $40.28 allow for potential future uses of the sites. As provided in UMTRCA, any future use would require a separate Commission license to assure that tre site remains or is restored to a safe and environmentally sound condition.
See the, " Future Uses of.the Disposal Site" section.
The proposed rulemaking would provide for a general license to governmental bodies for custody and long-term care of uranium or thorium mill tailings sites after closure, pursuant to statute. Therefore, this ruiemaking has no significant impact upon the private sector. However, the staff recognizes that there may be cases where communication and sharing of information between the current licensee and the future long-term care licensee may be appropriate.
Such communication will allow the long-term care licensee to better prepare the Long-Term Surveillance Plan by having more knowledge of how site closure was accomplished.
'III. Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Act' ion Amendments Act of 1988
~~
This Act was signed by the President on November 5.1988, and provides among other things an extension of the UMTRCA Title I program.
It allows the Department of Energy until September 30, 1994 (previously 1990) to perform remedial actions at designated uranium mill tailings sites and vicinity properties.
There is one major exception to the 1994 date. The authority to I
perform ground water restoration activities is extended without limitation.
4 However, to meet the current proposed EPA ground water standard, compliance with the ground water protection provisions at the disposal site would need to be accomplished by the 1994 date.
6 i
The reason for the extension to 1994 is to allow DOE enough time to complete reredial actions at all designated sites. The ground water restoration extension was provided due to the potential that EPA ground water standards may take DOE decades to complete for some sites. EPA is currently issuing new ground water standards in response to a September 3,1985 decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in which the ground water provisions of the EPA uranium mill tailings cleanup standards (40 CFR 192.20(a)(2-3)) for Title I sites were set aside and remanded to EPA.
Based on the proposed EPA standards (52 FR 36000; September 24,1987), the DOE believes that ground water restoration activities will take significantly more time than originally planned. The new standards have not yet been made final. Until final ground water standards are promulgated,t#1TRCA recuires that implementing agencies use the available proposed standards.
As a result of this Act, the NRC is planning to allow licensing of Title I sites to occur in two phases, if needed. The first phase would allow DOE, if necessary, to do all remedial actions, which include complying with the ground water protection standards addressing the design and performance at the disposal site for closure and licensing. The Act requires this to be completed prior to September 1994 The second phase, which can go on for many more years, would deal with existing ground water restoration. When ground water restoration is completed, the Long-Term Surveillance Plan would be appropriately amended. Until the EPA standards are finalized, and DOE and NRC
_._,. evaluate the sites based on these standards, we will not know how many sites would likely be involved in this two step licensing process.
The Act itself did not address the potential delay of licensing Title I sites due to the ground water provisions in EPA's proposed standards requiring mandatory post-closure performance monitoring. NRC's options ranged from a case-by-case use of EPA's supplemental standards provisions to exempt such sites entirely from performance monitoring to the inflexible consequence of
{
delaying all such licensing until completion of the ground water performance monitoring program. Such a delay could extend for up to 30 years or more.
Based on interaction with other Federal agencies and the Congressional legislative history, the NRC staff has selected the two phased approach discussed above to optimize flexibility.
)
1
NRC coments to EPA on their preposed standards suggested ways to remgy
,.the situation.
The final EPA standaros may resolve this-issue, but could also introduce new uncertainties.
Since the proposed EPA standards are legally binding until final rules are issued, this rule is designed to have flexibility to address various. situations.
!Y. The stabilization and Long-Tem Care Program (Title I and Tit'le II)
Although the end result for long-term care licensing for Title I or Title
!!sitesissimilar,theprocessesleadlriguptoclosureofTitleIorTitle11 sites are different. The following provides background on these processes, as well as sore of the differences between Title I and Title !! licensing.
Title I (24 sites)
UMTRCA charged the EPA with the responsibility for promulgating remedial action standards for inactive uranium mill sites.
The purpose of these standards is to protect the public health and safety' and the environment from radiolegical and non-radiological hazards associated with radioactive materials at the sites.
The final standards were pronmigated with an effective date of March 7,1983 (48 FR 602; January 5,1983).
See 40 CFR Part 192-Health and Environmental Protection for Uranium Mill Tailings Subparts A, B, anc C.
. /
The Department of Energy (DOE) will select and execute a ' plan of remedial action that will satisfy the EPA standards and other applicable laws and regulations. All remedial actions must be selected and performed with the concurrence of the NRC. The required NRC concurrence with the selection and performance of proposed remedial actions and'the licensing of long-term care of oisposal sites will be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with UMTRCA.
The portion of the EPA standards dealing with ground water requirements
~
has been remanded by court action, and are currently being finalized by EPA (see the previous section for more details). DOE continues to perfom remedial action at the inactive sites in accordance with NRC's concurrence with the remedial action approach.
Delaying implementation of the remedial action 8
1
~
?
program would be inconsistent with Congress' intent to timely completion of the program. Modifications of disposal sites after completion of the remedial action to comply with EPA's final ground water protection standards may be unnecessarily complicated and expensive and may not yield commensurate benefits in terms of human and environmental protection.
Therefore, the Commission believes that sites where remedial action has been essentially completed prior to EPA's promulgation of final ground water standards will not be impacted by the fin:1 ground water standards. Although additional effort may be appropriate to assess and cleanup contaminated ground water at these sites, the existing designs of the disposal sites should be considered sufficient to provide long-term protection against future ground water contamination.
NRC does not view UNTRCA as requiring the reopening of those sites that have been substantially completed when NRC concurred with the selection of remedial action in accordance with applicable EPA standards, proposed or otherwise in place at the time such NRC concurrence was given.
The stabilization and long-term care program for each site has four distinct phases.
In the first phase DOE selects a disposal site and design.
This phase includes preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, and a Remedial Action Plan. The Remedial Action Plan is structured to provide a comprehensive understanding of the remedial actions proposed at that site and contains specific design and construction requirements. NRC and State / Indian tribe concur in the Remedial
_., Action Plan to complete the first phase.
The second phase is the performance phase.
In this phase the actual decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation at the site is done in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan. The NRC and the State / Indian tribe, as applicable, must concur in any changes to this plan. At the completion of reclamation activities at the site, NRC concurs in DOE's determination that the activities at the site have been completed in accordance with the approved plan. Prior to licensing, the next phase, title to the disposed tailings and contaminated materials and the land upon which they are disposed must be in Federal custody (except for sites on Indian lands) to provide for long-term Federal control, at Federal expense.
9
=
NRC concurrence in the DOE determination that reclamation of the site has been accomplished in accordar.ce with the approved plan may be accomplished in two phases.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 allows for a two phased approach for Title I sites. The Act will allow DOE to do all remedial actions, other than ground water restoration, for the first phase of closure and licensing.
The second phase, which can go on for many years, will deal with existing ground water restoration. When ground water restoration is completed, the LTSP will be appropriately amended. See the earlier discussion on this-law for more details.
The third phase is the licensing phase. The general license is effective-following (1) NRC concurrence in the DOE determination that the site has been properly reclaimed anc (2) the formal receipt by NRC of an acceptable Long-Term Surveillance Plan. NRC concurrence with completion indicate that the site has been stabilized in accordance with EPA standards. This NRC concurrence may be complet'ed in two phases as discussed above and in the section on the Act.
There is no termination date.for the general license.
In the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on August 25, 1988, the NRC indicated the intent to publish a Federal Register notice upon receipt of the LTSP and provide a public meeting to inform the local public of the future plans for the site and to provide an opportunity for public comments.
I The NRC has further evaluated this procedure and recognized that opportunity for public involvement will be more effective at an earlier stage.
Public involvement has been and will continue to be provided through DOE's overall.
remedial action program for Title I s'1'tes and NRC's licensi-ng program for Title
~
t
!! sites. The local public will have an opportunity to ecmment on the remedial action or closure plans proposed and implemented by DOE or the Title II licensee and to raise concerns regarding final stabilization and the degree of protection achieved. NRC fully endorses State and public input in all stages of the program, especially in the planning stages of remedial action when such input can be most effective in identifying and resolving issues affecting long-term care. At the time the LTSP is submitted, the NRC will consider the need for a public meeting in response to requests and public concerns.
Therefore, NRC encourages State and public participation early in the remedial action and closure process and will provide additional opportunities, as needed, later in the process.
10
..que
~
~e The final phase of the program is surveillance and monitoring and begins after NRC receives the LTSP.
In this phase DOE and NRC periodically inspect the site to ensure.its integrity.
The Long-Term Surveillance Plan will require the DOE to make repairs, if needed.
One of the requirements in the EPA standards is that control of the tailings should be designeo to be effective for up to 1000 years without active maintenance.
Although the design of thgstabilized pile is such that reliance on active maintenance should be minimized or eliminated, the NRC license will require emergency repairs as necessary. -In the event that significant repairs are necessary, a determination will be made on a site specific basis regarding the need for additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions, and health and safety considerations from Parts 19, 20, and 21.
Title II UMTRCA also charged EPA with the responsibility for promulgating standards for active uranium or thorium ' sites.
EPA completed this in Subpart D and E of 40 CFR Part 192 on October 7,1983 (a8 FR 45946).
4 Title 11 sites have active NRC or Agreement State licenses.
Each licensee is responsible for having a closure plan that is approved by the NRC or an Agreement State.
This plan describes how the licensee will close the site to meet all applicable standards after completion of operations.
Before the NRC, or an Agreement State, terminates a license the site must be closed in a manner which meets applicable standards. These include the requirements contained within 10 CFR Part 40 - Domestic Licensing of Source Material, or similar Agreement State requirements.
In addition,10 CFR 150.15a requires that prior to the termdiation of any Agreement State license for
~
byproduct material, the Co nission shall have made a determination that all applicable standards and requirements have been met. Once the future long-term care licensee has submitted a suitable LTSO, the general license takes effect when either NRC terminates the current specific license or when NRC concurs with an Agreement State's termination of the current specific license.
This rulemaking provides the Commission with two options te maintain control over 11 9'
w.;R.r '_o P#[ d
L -
{~
(1) an acceptable LTSP has not been sites in the t.nexpected situation when:
submitted; (2) the current specific license is ready to be terminated; (3) NRC had determineo that the site has been' closed in accordnace with applicable standares; and (4) site custooy has been transferred to the long-term care Itcensee. The Commission could delay termi6ation of the specific license until an acceptable LTSP is submitted or issue an order requiring surveillance by the custodian of the site, who will become the long-term care licensee under the general license. The Commission considers either of these actions to be suf'ficient to ensure that the site will be under surveillance and control during the transition period from the specific to the general license.
The general license approach for Title 11 sites is similar to the process used for Title I sites.
The most significant differences are:
1.
A State, at its option, nay take over long-term care of a Title 11 site instead oi the DOE.
2.
In some rare cases, such as may occur with deep burial where no ongoing site surveillance will be required.. surface land ownership trans+,r requirements may be waived for a Title !! site.
3.
Potential future uses of a Title I site are limited to subsurface rights, whereas, a Title !! site ceuld also potentially allow the usage of surface rights.
(See the section entitled " Future'uses of the Disposal Site.")
2
~'
4 Title II licensees are required to pay a minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance. This i
charge must be paid to the general treasury of the United States or to an appropriate State agency prior to the termination of a uranium or thorium mill license. The minimum charge may be adjusted based on site specific requirements in excess of those specified in Criterion 12 of Appendix A.
12 i
~
5.
The determinatien that Title 1 sites have been reclaimed may be done in two phases, whereas the determination for Title !! Sites will be done only once before licerse termination.
6.
There is an additional Title 11 re'quirement when a license in an Agreement State is terminated and the site transferred to the United States for long-term care. All funds collected by the State for long-term surveillance will be transferred to the United States.
This requirement has already been codified in Part 150 and is not part of this rulemaking.
7.
Title I covers designated inactive uranium mill tailings sites.
Title 11 covers sites licensed as of January 1, 1978 and new uranium and thorium inill tailings sites.
Ten of the 19 conventional mills licensed by NRC have made corporatre cecisions to no longer use the sites or keep them in standby condition. They plan to decommission them and are seeking license. termination. Activities at these 10 sites are in various stages of-design, plan'ning and decommissioning.
V.
The Long-Verm Surveillance Plan (TitleIandTitleII)
DOE, or the appropriate State, will submit a site Long-Tenn Surveillance
]
Plan to the NRC to coincide with comp 1' tion of remedial actions (Titleil) or.
e license termination (Title II).
DOE, or the appropriate State, will be responsible for preparing the LTSP since this document will' clearly define their responsibilities under the general license. As discussed previously, the LTSp for Title i sites will allow a two-phased approach as provided in the q
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988.
The Act will l
allow DOE to do all remedial actions, other than ground water restoration, for the first phase of closure and licensing.
The first phase includes any performance or-design features necessary to satisfy ground water protection standards, execpt for ground water restoration.
The second phase, which can go on for many years, will deal with existing ground water restoratior,. When ground water restoration is completed, the LTSP will be appropriately modified.
13
p.
Title i The DOE has developed a " Guidance fer UNTRA Project Surveillance ano Maintenance" document issued in January 1986,.
Copies of this document-are available from the U.S. Department of Energy, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87115. This docu-ment, which was developed with NRC staff coordination, provides detailed generic guidance for what inforn.ation should be considered in designing a site LTSP for Title I sites.
The 00E guidance cocument address s'five primary activities.
These activities, which are discussed in the following paragraphs, are:
1.
Definition and characterization of final site conditions..
2.
Site inspections.
3.
Ground water monitoring, if necessary.
4 Aerial photography.
5.
Contingency (or emergency) repair, and planned maintenance if necessary.
DOE indicated that final site conditions should be defined and characterizea prior to the completion of remedial actions at a site. As-built drawings should be compiled, a final topographic survey should be performed, a vicinity map should be prepared, and ground and aerial photographs should be
+
taken.. Survey monuments, site markers,Iand signs-should be. established. - I f.
the site LTSP specifies that ground water monitoring is required, then a network of monitoring wells should be identified and new wells established if needed.
i DOE describes three types of inspections: Phase I, Phase II (not to be confused with the two phases of remedial action when ground water restoration is required), and contingency inspections. Annually scheduled 1 to 2-day phase I inspections would be conducted by a small teem to identify any changes in conditions that may affect design integrity.
Phase II inspections would be unscheduled and dependent upon potential problems identified during a Phase I inspection. Team members of a Phase II inspection should be specialists in the 14
4 potential problem areas (e.g., geotechnical engineer for settlement).
Contingency inspections would also be unscheduled and occur when information has been received that indicates that site integrity has been, or may be, threatened by natural events (e.g., severe earthquake) or other means.
The need to monitor ground water conditions should be determined on a site specific basis.
If it is determined that ground water monitoring is recuired for the long-term care at the site, then it should be conducted in two phases, screening monitoring and evaluative monitoring. ' Screening monitoring would be designed to detect changes in ground water quality attributable to the tailings.
If a significant change is apparent, evaluative monitoring should be
~
initiated. Evaluative monitoring will be more extensive and will quantify the rate and magnitude of the change of conditions. When EPA finalizes the ground water protection standards, modifications may be necessary. See the discussion on the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 for more details.
Initial surveillances should include the acquisition and interpretation of-aerial photography. The principal purposes of aerial. photography are to aid inspectors in the field and to provide a permanent, visual record of site conditions.
Color infrared stereo photos, high oblique prints, and low oblique, natural color photographs should be taken at the completion of remedia) action. Follow-up serial photography would only be done if the Phase I or Phase 11 inspections identify a need for this.
~
The LTSP should also describe the procedures the 1cng-term licensee would follow if contingency or emergency repairs were needed at the site due to extreme natural events or purposeful intrusion.
~
The conduct of custodial activities such as grass mowing or fence repair i
are not precluded.
If the 10ng-term care licensee desires to. conduct such custodial activities (termed " planned maintenance" in the DOE guidance cocument), such activities should be described in the LTSP. However, it should be noted that such planned maintenance cannot be relied upon to ensure compliance with the EPA standards.
15 i
1 Title !!
'i l
Much of the above guidance can be applied to the Title Il sites.
- However, j
the DOE guidance document includes additional information_ and recommendations
[
for which the applicability must be evaluat(d on a site specific basis for
_j Title 11 sites.
Specific requirements for Title !! sites are addressed in l
Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
For Title !! sites, criterion 10 of Appendix A requires the existing licensee to pay a minimum charge of $250,000 (1978
[
dollars) to cover the costs of long term surveillance.
The minimum charge was
.f based on an annual inspection by the governmental agency retaining custody of the site tn_ confirm the integrity of the stabilized tailings and to determine the need, if any, for maintenance and/or monitoring.
The actual amount.of this charge will be set based on a site specific evaluation, which should be included as part of the existing licensee's reclamation plan for the site.
This charge is not intended to cover the cost of contingency (emergency) repairs. Because the tailings and wastes should be disposed of without the need for any active maintenance, the annual inspection should be completed in 1 to 2 days per site.
Post-closure maintenance activities that are relied upon to comply with Appendix A closure standards can only he authorized by considerations of alternatives under Section 84(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,. as amended.
In such cases, the minimum charge for long-term surveillance to the existing licensee will be increased.accordingly to provide for. this maintenance. The basis for the minimum charge and the annual inspection is discussed in detail in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
- ~
uraniummilling(NUREG-0706)l
- ~.
=.
t I Copies.of NUREG-0706 may be purchased from the Superintendent of-Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC l
20013-7082. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information l
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
A copy is also available for public inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Lower Level of the Gelman Building, Washington, DC.
16
l L
The custodial agency will prepare an LTSP for each site uting input from the existing licensee's reclamation plan, including the evaluation of long-term surveillance needs.
Thus, important site information will be transferred from the existing licensee to the custodial ageney.
The existing.1.icensee, however, will not be required to prepare the ! TSP.
In addition the LTSP will not affect the long-term surveillance charge paid by the existing licensee (the LTSP may reflect site-specific additional items, but will not affect the charge to the existinglicensee).
VI.
Future Uses of the Disposal Site LTTRCA provides for potential future uses of the disposal site.
For a Title I site, it provides that the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of both the Secretary of Energy and the NRC, may dispose of any subsurface mineral rights.
If this occurs, the NPC will issue a specific license to the Secretary of the Interior to assure that the tailings are_not disturbed, or if disturbed are, restored to a safe ard environmentally sound condition.
For a Title !! site the same provisions as above apply with the following two differences.
First, surface as well as subsurface estates may be available for use. Second, although the request to use these rights may be received from any person, if permission is granted, the person who transferred the land to
~" the Federal or State Government shall receive the right of first refusal with,,
2 respect to this use of'the 16nd.
- ~~
~
Environmental impacts would be evaluated prior to any action granting the use of surface or subsurface estates.
VII.
Response to Issues for Comment The Advance Hotice of Proposed Rulemaking identified several areas of uncertainty and requested coments on the following topics:
1.
DOE's ability to complete the Title I program considering the 17 l
l 1990 legal limit, i
j; 2.
EPA's proposed amendments of 40 CFR Part 192 concerning ground water protection for Title I sites.
i l
3.
Institutional matters associated with reclaimed sites on Indian' land.-
The NRC did not receive any comments specifically addressing these topics.
However, the uncertainty associated with' the'first issue was resolved with the passage of the Uranium Hill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1986.
l See the earlier discussion on this law for more details.
VIII. Coments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Comission received six (6) letters comenting on the advance notice.
l Copies of those letters and an analysis of the comments are.available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L St. NW, Washington, DC. Coments were received from an environmental group, an industry representative, the Department of Energy, and from three States. From the six letters 15 individual coments have been analyzed.
The most signif t ant are sumarized below.
There seemed to be some misunderstanding by one comenter that the i
long-term care licensee might, in essence, require the existing _ licensee to-prepare the LTSP during site closure activities, thereby impacting the private sector. NRC agrees with the commentor that consultation between the existing i
licensee and the long-term care licensee is appropriate during site closure activities. However, the Comission does not intend for the existing licensee to prepare the LTSP. Instead, the LTSP should be prepared by the custodial agency which becomes the long-term care licensee once NRC accepts the LTSP, the specific license is terminated, and site custody hat been transferred.
The custodial agency should prepare the LTSP based on. input from the existing licensee's reclamation plan for the site, including the evaluation of long-term surveillance needs. This approach provides a mechanism to integrate the reclamation program with long-term surveillance and transfers important site 18
information to the custodial agency. NRC encourages consultation between the existing licensee and the custodial agency about post-closure surveillance.
Accordinoly, NRC has changed the phrase "no impact" to "no significant impact" because such consultation is appropriate and desirable and requires some level L
of effort on the part of the existing licens~ee.
NRC does not consider this effort to be significant, however, because it is a part of other licensee activities required to reclaim the site and terminate the existing license in I
accordance with existing NRC requirements in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
l One commenter noted that the term " remedial action plan" may not be appropriate for Title !! sites since 10 CFR Part 40 refers to a " closure plan."
We agree and have made appropriate changes.
Remedial action plans refer to Title I sites only.
Two commenters wanted to know about potential uses of a disposal site after reclamation or closure is completed.
The NRC is not_ aware of any l
disposal sites where a future use is specifically planned. One of the commenters listed several potential uses, such as agricultural, recreational, or deep subsurface mining. Because of the site spec'ific nature of such uses l
and their potential impacts any proposed use will be reviewed on a case-by-case l
basis.
l l
The Department of Energy expressed concern that the proposed rule would require an LTSP at sites where contaminated material has been removed and, if applicable, ground water cleanup achieved.. We agree that an LTSP,(or a 2
~
license) for these sites is not appropriate and never intended for this to be the case. We have added clarifying language.
It should be noted, however, that the NRC would in no case concur with completion of remedial action unless' the DOE had complied with the EPA cleanup standardf at the processing site, even if the tailings were disposed elsewhere l.
IX. Petition for Rulemaking l
On December 5,1980, the NRC received a petition for rulemaking submitted bi the Sierra Club (PRM-40-23). An amendment to this petition was received by the NRC on March 21, 1983. The original petition requested that the NRC amend 19
~. - _ -
1 l
its regulations to license-the possession of byproduct material at inactive tailings sites (Title 1). The petitioner proposed that the fiRC take the following regulatory action to ensure that public health and safety and the-environment is adequately protected from the hazards assnciated with byproduct
~
material:
1.
Repeal the licensing exemption for inactive mill tailings j
sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial program.
2.
Require a license for the possession of byproduct material on-any other property in the viciriity'of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the-inactive mill tailings site.
3.
Or alternatively, conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or the byproduct material derived from the sites constitutes an unreasonable risk to.public health and!
safety.
In the 1983 amendment, the petitioner requested that, in the event that NRC denied the petitioner's earlier request that NRC repeal the licensing exemptien for inactive sites or conduct the requested rulemaking, the NRC take further action. Specifically, the petitioner reouested that the NRC ensure
' that the management of byproduct material located on or. derived from inactive l
l'
~
uranium processing sites is conducted in a mau.ter that protect's t.he public'
\\.
health and safety and the environment from the radiological and nonradiological harards associated with uranium mill tailings.
Whether the original petition is granted or not, the petitioner also reovested that the NRC establish requirements to govern the management of byproduct material, not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2111), comparable to the requirements applicable to similar materials under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
j 6901 et seq.).
In the alternative, the petitioner suggested that NRC extend j
l the coverage of the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, which are now applicable only to licensed byproduct material, to byproduct material not l
l 20
~
subject to licensing.
In addition, the petitioner requested that NRC issue regulations that would require a person exempt from licensing to conduct monitoring activities, perfom remedial work, or take any other action necessary to protect health and safety and the environment.
One of the purposes of this proposed rulemaking is to provide a licensing procedure for long-term care of inactive sites. Although this is not what the petitioner requested, the end result directly addresses the petitioner's concerns.
Inactive sites will be licensed and will be managed to ensure their long-term integrity to protect public health and the environment.
Another concern of the petitioner is that until DOE completes remedial action, the residual radioactive material will be unregulated. While it is true that the sites are not regulated by NRC prior to completion of remedial action, the sites are managed by DOE under a comprehensive environmental, health, and safety program similar to the types of programs required by NRC under 10 CFR Part 20. This program includes the types of activities requested by petitioner, including monitoring and other actions necessary to protect public health and safety and the environment.
In addition, the remedial action program operates under a series of State laws and regulatory pr7 grams intended m protect human health and the environment. Although the Commission does not '
have the authority to approve DOE's environmental, health, and safety program for these sites, NRC has reviewed and comented on the adequacy of the pro $ am
. and DOE has consicered these coments in the design and implementation of its program.
The Commission intends to respond more fully to the petitioner's request by the time the rulemaking described in today's notice is final.
X4 EPA Clean Air Act Activities EPA has published new air effluent regulations for radon and other radioactive effluents from uranium mill tailings as part of the voluntary remand of standards developed under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (54 FR 51654, December 15,1989). The EPA regulations include a radon emission standard that would apply to both Title I and Title 11 sites after closure that 21
i nust be confirmed by measurement.
Other NRC and EPA regulations are design i
standards. Once measurements confirm that the site meets CAA s hndards and l
long-term stabilization has been completed, the tailings are no longer subject to EPA regulations under the CAA standards.
Prior to closure, it is entirely possible that the CAA standards could result in EPA ordered wadifications to i
l sites that already meet current design standards. The potential for cor.flicting EPA and NRC/ Agreement State regulatory programs prior to the long-term care period, will require close coordination between the two agencies, and with States depending on CAA delegations.
1 Because of the potential uncertainties of implementation, compliance agreements between EPA and States, DOE, or licensees, and potential regulatory changes, the NRC has added to the proposed rule a proposed requirement to report governmentally directed activities to NRC prior to taking any actions under the general license.
l l
XI. Finding of No Signi.ficant Environmental Impact: Availability
~
The Commission has determined under the Nationa1' Environmental Policy Act l
of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A'of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action sigaificantly affectinS the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The proposed rulemaking will
-establish general licenses for long-term care of ur'anium or thorium mill tailings sites by. another Federal agency. or State..The licensirg.. action.will-be done after remedial oction or site closure is completed, and would ensure that sites remain in good condition.
If unexpected repairs are ever required, the long-term care licensee will be responsible to make the necessary repairs.
The Comission will evaluate at the time such action is deemed necessary~
whether there is a need to prepare a separate environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which l
this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies o
22
j of the environmental a n essment and finding of no significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Nail Stop NLS-260.
Telephone (301)492-3877.
X,I I.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement i
This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information l
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of'1980 (44 l
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirenents were approved by the Office of i
Nanagement and Budget approval number 3150-0020.
XI!!.
Regulatory Analysis l
The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.
The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection f
in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street flW (Lower Level), Washington, t
DC. Single copies of the draft analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield, Office of fluelear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Mail Stop NLS-260.
The Commission requests public comment on the draf t regulatory analysis.
Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under
^ the ADDRESSES heading.
XIV.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement As recuired by the Regulatory flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U,3.C. 605(b),
the Comission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not % a signifi-cant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This rule will apply only to a Feddp1 agency or an appropriate State. Although small entities may be requested to consult with government agencies in developirg LTSPs effort associated with such cunsultation is required under the criteria in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, which were previously promulgated by the Comission.
Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared.
23 N
,-n,
~-
-.. ~. -
i f
I i
XV. Backfit Analysis I
i The NRC has detennined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposeo rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not
~
required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
l XVI.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40 i
Government contracts, Nazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, $ource material, and Uranium.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 474, 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 Pe t 10.
PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL 1.
The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 163, 182, 183, 186, 63 Stat. ~
~'
932, 933, 935, 9'48, 953, 95'4,'955, asamended, secs.11e(2),B3,84, Pub.'
~
^
~
~
l 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, 2096 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 i
U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended. 202, 206, 86 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L.97-415, 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.
i 24 l
I 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); li40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a')-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.67 are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as I
amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and il40.5, 40.9, 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (a), 40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64, and 40.65 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950,'as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
I i
2.
Section 40.1 is revised to read as follows:
i
$40.1 Purpose, j
i (a) The regulations in this part establish procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive title to, receive, possess, use, f
transfer, or deliver source and byproduct materials, as defined in this part, and esttblish,and provide for the terms and conditions upon which the Commission will issue these licenses. These regulations also provide
[
for disposal and long-term care of byproduct and residual radioactive material.
The regulations in th.is part also establish certain recuirements for the physical protection of import, export, and transient shipments of natural uranium.
(Additional requirements applicable to the import and export of natural uranium are set forth in Part 110 of this
~"
chapter.)
i
)
(b) The regulations contained in this part are issued under the l
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 919) Title !! of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (88 Stat.1242), and Titles j
1 and !! of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7901).
l L
3.
In 140.2a, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
l i
640.2a Coverage of inactive tailings sites.
i 25
l o
(4) prior to the completion of the remedial action, the Comission will not reevire a license pursuant to 10 CFR Chapter ! for possession of l
residual radioactive materials as defined in this Part that are located at a site where milling operations are no longer active, if the site is
'{
covered by the remedial action program ~of Title 1 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
The Comission will exert its regulatory role in remedial actions primarily through concurrence and consultation in the execution of the remedial action pursuant to Title !
of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended.
l t
l After reredial actions are completed, the Commission will license the long-term care of sites, where residual radioactive materials are disposed, under the requirements set out in 140.27.
f r
t 4.
Section 40.3 is revised to read as follows:
$40.3 License requirements.
l t
A person subject to the regulations in this part may not receive title to, own, receive, possess, use, transfer, provide for long-term care, deliver or dispose of byproduct material or residual radioactive I
material as defined in this part or'any source material after removal from it's place of deposit in nature, unless authorized in a specific or general
?
license issued by the Commission,under the. regulations.inithis part.
5.
In 640.4, paragraph (t) is added to read as follows:
640.4 Definitions.
(t) " Residual radioactive material" means: (1) Waste (whichthe l
Secretary of Energy detemines to be radioactive) in the form of tailings resulting from the processing of ores for the extraction of uranium and i
other valuable constituents of the ores; and (2) other waste (which the i
_26
1
\\
t.
Secretary of. Energy determines to be radioactive) at a processing site which relates to such processing, including any residual stock of unpro-cessed ores or low-grade materials.
This term is used only with respect to materials at sites subject to remediation under Title I of the Uranium
~
Mill Teilings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
6.
In $40.7, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
640.7 Employee protection.
e e
s e
e 1
(f) The general licenses provided in 1640.21,40.22,40.25,40.27, and 40.28 are exempt from paragraph (e) of this section.
1 1
7.
Section 40.20 is revised to read as follows:
140.20 Types of licenses.
(a) Licenses for source tienterial, byproduct material, and residual radioactive material are of two types:
general and. specific. The general licenses provided in this part are effective without the filing of l
applications with the Comission or the issuance of licensing documents to I
~
particular persons.
Specific licenses are issued to named persons upon applications filed pursuant'to the regulations in~this part. ~
~
~
(b) Section 40.27 contains a general license applicable for custody and long-term care of residual radioactive material at uranium mill I
tailings disposal sites remediated under Title I of the Uranium Mill
{
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
(c) Section 40.28 contains a general license applicable for custody l
and long-term care of byproduct material at uranium or thorium mill a
tailings disposal sites under Title !! of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
4 4
27
O 8.
New li40.27 and 40.28 are added to read as follows:
140.27 General license for long term care of DOE remedial action sites.
(a) A general license is issued for the long term care, including monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures necessary to protect public health and safety and other actions decessary to comply with the standards promulgated under section 27$(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, for remediated uranium mill tailings sites under Title 1 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended. The.
license is available only to the Department of Energy, or another Federal agency designated by the President to provide long-term care! The purpose of this general license is to ensure that uranium mill tailings sites will be cared for in such a manner as to protect the public health, safety, and the environment after remedial action has been completed.
(b) The general license in paragraph (a) of this section becomes effective when the Commission accepts a site Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) that meets the requirements of this section, and when the Commist. ion r.oncurs with the Department of Energy's determination of completion of remedial action at each site.
The LTSP may incorporate by reference information contained in documents previously submitted to the Commission if the refersnces to the individual incorporated documents are clear and specific.
Each LTSP must include--
)
i
~
~
~
(1) A legal description of the site to be Itcensed, including docu.
mentation on whether land and interests are owned by the United States or an Indian tribe.
If the site is on Indian land, then, as specified in the Uranium flill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, the Indian tribe and any person holding any interest in the land shall execute a waiver releasing the United States of any liability or claim by the Tribe or person concerning or arising from the remedial action and holding the United States harmless against any claim arising out of the performance of the remedial action; 28 l
(2) A detailed description, which can be in the form of a reference, of the final site conditions, including existing ground water characterization. This description must be detailed enough so that future inspectors will have a baseline to determine changes to the site and when these changes are serious enough to require maintenance or repairs.
If the site has continuing aquifer restoration requirements, then the licensing process will be completed in two phases. The first phase includes all items other than ground water restoration.
Ground water monitoring may still be required in this first phase to assess performance of the tailings disposal units. When the Comission concurs with the completion of ground water restoration, the licensee shall assess the need to modify the LTSp and report results to the Comission.
If the proposed modifications meet the requirements of this section, the LTSP will be considered suitable to accomodate the second phase.
(3) A description of the long-tem surveillance program, including proposed inspection frequency and reporting to the Commission, frequency and extent of ground water monitoring if required, appropriat'e constituent concentration limits for ground water, inspection personnel qualifications, inspection procedures, recordkeeping and quality assurance procedures; i
(4) The criteria for follow-up inspections in response to observa tios.t from routine inspections or extreme natural events; and
~~
(5)' lhe criteria for'instiiuting maintenance or emergency measures. '
' ~
~~
(c) The long-term care agency under the general license established by paragraph (a) of this section shall --
(1)
ImplementtheLTSPasdescribedinparagraph(b)ofthis section; (2) Care for the site in accordance with the provisions of the LTSP; 4
29 I
O (3) tiotify the Comission of any changes to the LTSP; any such changes must not conflict with the requirements of this section; (4) Guarantee pemanent right-of-entry to Comission representatives for the purpose of periodic site inspections; and
($) Notify the Comission prior to undertaking any significa'r.t construction, actions, or repairs related to the site, even if the action is required by another State or Federal agency.
(d) As specified in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy and the Comission, may sell or lease any subsurface mineral rights associated with land on which residual radioactive meterials are disposed.
In such cases, the Comission shall grant a license permitting use of the land if it finds that such use will not disturb the residual radioactive mhterials or that such materials will b[
restored to a safe and environmentally sound condition if they are disturbed by such use.
(e) The general license in paragraph (a) of this section is exempt from Parts 19, 20, and 21 of this Chapter, unless significant construction, actions, or repairs are required.
If such actions are to be undertaken, the licensee shall justify to the Comission which
~~
requirements from these Parts apply for such actions and comply with the '
appropriate requirements.
~~
~
$40.28 General license for long-term care of uranium or thorium byproduct materials sites.
(a) A general license is issued for the long-term care, including monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures necessary to protect the public health and safety and other actions necessary to comply with the 30 u
o f
0 t
standards in this part for urenium br thorium miil tailings sites closed under Title !! of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as anended.
The licensee will be the Department of Energy, another Federal agency designated by the President, or a State where the site is located. The purpose of this general license is to ensure that uranium and thorium mill tailings sites will be cared for in such a manner as to i
protect the public health, safety, and the environment after closure..
l r
(b) The general license in paragraph (a) of this section becomes l
effective when the Comission terminates, or concurs in an Agreement j
State's termination of, the current specific license and a site Long-Term SurvM11ancePlan(LTSP)meetingthereovirementsofthissectionhasbeen accepted by the Comission.
If the LTSP has not been femally received by f
the NRC prior to termination of the current specific license, the l
Comission may issue a specific order to the intended custodial igency to j
ensure continued control and surveillance of the site to protect the public health, safety, and the environment. The LTSP ray incorporate by i
reference information contained in documents previously submitted to the Comission if the references to the individuel incorporated documarts are' f
clear and specific.
Each LTSP must include--
{
(1) A legal description of the site to be transferred and licensed; (2) A detailed description, which can be in the form of a reference, of the final site conditions, inc1uding existing ground water f
^
characterizations This description must be detailed enough so-that future' f
inspectors will have a baseline to determine changes to the site and when these changes are serious enough to require maintenance or repairs; l
(3) A description of the long-term surveillance program, including
[
proposed inspection frequency and reporting to the Commission (see Appendix A, Criterion 12 of this Part for more details on inspections and reporting), frequency and extent of ground water monitoring if required, r
l 1
31
-i l
I
l e'
o, q
l
)
appropriate constituent concentration limits for ground water, inspection l
personnel qualifications, inspection procedures, recordkeeping and quality l
assurance procedures; I
l (A) Ti.e criteria for follow-up inspections in response to i
observations free routine inspections or extreme natural events; and i
(5) The criteria for instituting maintenance or emergency measures.
i l
(c) 'The long term care agency who has a general license established by paragraph (a) of this sectio, sha.11 --
i (1)
Implement the LTSP as described in paragraph (b) of this section; l
(2) Care for the site in accordance with the provisions of the LTSP; i
(3) Notify the Comission of any changes to the LTSP; any such I
t changes must not conflict with the requirements gf this section; t
L (4) Guarantee permanent right-of-entry to Comission representatives for the purpose of periodic site inspections; and i
i (5) i:otify the Comission prior to undertaking any significant t
construction, actions, or repairs. related to. the site,. even if the action '-
is required by another State or Federal agency.
(d) Upon application, the Commission may issue a specific license, as specified in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, i
permitting the u.se of surface and/or subsurface estates transferred to the United States or a State. Although an application may be received from any person, if permission is granted, the person who transferred the land to DOE or the State shall receive the right of first refusal with respect to this use of the land. The application must demonstrate that--
l 4
32
~
o.
I (1) The proposed action does not endanger the public health, safety, f
welfare, or the environment (2) Whether the proposed action is of a temporary or permanent f
nature, the site would be maintained afid/or restored to meet requirements f
in Appendix A of this Part for closed sites; and j
(3) Adequate financial arrangement are in place to ensure that the byproduct materials will not be disturbed, or if disturbed that the applicant is able to restore the site to a safe and environmentally sound f
condition.
I i
(e) The general license in paragraph (a) of this section is exempt from parts 19, 20, and 21 of this Chapter, unless significant construction, actions, or repairs are required.
If such actions are to be
[
undertaken, the licensee shall justify to the Commission which requirements from these Parts apply for such actions and comply with the
~
appropriate requirements.
(f)
In cases where the Comission determines that transfer of title of land used for disposal of any byproduct materials to the United States or any appropriate State is not necessary to protect the public health, j
safety or welfare or to minimize or eliminate danger to life or property (Atomic Energy Act, IB3(b)(2) and (4)), the Comission will execute its f
licensing responsibilities on a case-by-case basis.
9.
Appendix A, Criterion 12 is revised to read as follows:
l Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction.
or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
i 9
9 9
9 9
4 il 6
l 33 1
- g-,
r...
., ~,, _
~ _. _. _ _ _
e o
)
l Criterion 12--The final disposition of tailings or wastes at milling sites should be such that ongoing active maintenance is not necessary to
)
preserve isolation.
As a minimum, annual site inspections must be conducted by the government agency retaining ultimate custody of the site where tailings, or wastes, are stored to confirm the integrity of the l
I stabilized,jailings or waste systems and to determine the need, if any, i
for maintenance and/or monitoring. Results of the inspections for all the j
sites uader the licensee's jurisdiction will be reported to the Comission I
annually within 90 days of the'last site inspected in that calendar year.
t Any site where unusual damage or disruption is discovered during the i
1 inspection, however, will require a preliminary site inspection report to be submitted within 60 days. On the basis of a site specific evaluation.
the Comission may require more frequent site inspections if necessary due
[
to the features of a particular tailings or waste disposal system.
In this case, a preliminary inspection report is required to be submitted
[
within 60 days following each inspection.
f i
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of AeJ
, 1990.
~"
For he Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
,g A
Ol0 m
Samuel Jg Chi 1I, Secretary of the Comission.
t i
b b
-..