ML20043C716
| ML20043C716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/11/1990 |
| From: | Haisfield M NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043C687 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR3970, REF-WM-3 AC56-2-15, AC56-2-16, NUDOCS 9006060096 | |
| Download: ML20043C716 (69) | |
Text
,
o; 4
w ENCLOSURE 1
Document Name:
DETAILED COMNDITS Requestor's ID:
RINN Author's home:
mark haisfield Document Comments:
comments on proposed rule I
Ay,
.Z Ace JJJ k keynk pyij u
- 4w' st.
7%d f f'
- ksl, f/kelt
.$$f WJ w t*
lW h' fjLf 4.
.t'A Cbf, 44 1
a;q
- s.a4 yr7 4M
' tid
)
9006060096 900525 PDR WASTE WM-3 F,Dc_..
-jf rl DETAILED COP 94ENT ANALYSIS 1
Commenter 1: Jeffrey H. Desautels, Sr. Attorney, Arco Coal Company, f
Comment 1.1: Arco Coal Company (" Arco") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the referenced proposed rule. Arco owns the Bluewater Uranium Mill near.
Grants, New Mexico which is an " active" site subject to the requirements of Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA").
j The Bluewater Mill is being demolished at this time, and in addition Arco has-submitted a plan to the NRC for approval of final reclamation and closure under appropriate NRC rules and guidance.
In general, Arco wholeheartedly supports'these proposed rules. We believe the Commission has done a particularly good job of setting forth the transition to final DOE custody and control of Title 11 sites. We have a few specific comments and questions regarding certain aspects of the proposed rules.
Our first comment relates to the statement, repeated several places within the preamble to the proposal, that the DOE is responsible for preparing and submitting to the Commission a "Long-Term Surveillance Plan," or LTSP. Because this requirement is placed upon the DOE, rather than the specific licensee, the NRC has determined that the proposed rule will not significantly impact the private sector. Our concern in this regard is that if DOE delays preparation and submittal'of the LTSP, the licensee say be placed in a position of having to delay final closure and turnovst of its site to the federal government.
This would cause further costs to be imposed, creating doubt in our minds as to whether this rule truly will have no significant impact on the private sector.
The preamble (at p. 3974) and the proposed rule itself are not specific enough in this regard. The preamble states that in the event the LTSP has not been submitted by DOE by the time the NRC is ready to terminate the specific license, the NRC has the choice of either delaying termination of the specific license, or of ordering the DOE to assume control over the site and conduct surveillance. Section 40.28(b) contains the same optional language.
Licensees need to be assured t' hat turnover will not be delayed. Therefore, the NRC L
2 should change the second sentence of Section 40.28(b) to read that "...the Commission shall issue a specific order to the intended custodial agency to ensure continued control and surveillance of the site to protect the public health, safety, and the environment." Otherwise, licensees could be pieced in the untenable position of having final closure delayed, perhaps indefinitely, which DOE decides whether and when to submit an LTSP. That would create significant financial impacts on the private sector that can't be ignored by NRC in this rulemaking.
Response: We agree that an indefinite delay in terminating the license could increase the impacts to an existing licensee. Wording will be added to the rule and Statement of Consideration that NRC does not think it is appropriate for the private sector to be significantly impacted by lack of action on DOE's (or the State's) part. Therefore, if significant financial impacts are anticipated, issuing an order would be our prime option. However, the Commission does not want to preclude the option of not terminating the specific license if this might be appropriate for a relatively short period, a
Comment 1.2: Our second point relates to the " minimum" $250,000 payment for long-term surveillance. Again, there appears to be some confusion regarding how the specific amount of that payment is to be determined. On p. 3974 of the preamble, it is noted that "(T)he minimum charge may be adjusted based on site specific requirements in excess of those specified in Criterion 12 cf Appendix A."
We assume that such an adjustment would be used only in cases where a closure plan requires active maintenance rather than the passive maintenance scheme assumed in Criterion 12. However, that is not made explicit in the proposal. For example, on p. 3975 the following statement appears:
Post-closure maintenance activities that are relied upon to comply with Appendix A closure standards can only be 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.
I
=
3
- p That section continues
"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 existing licensee)."
We assume that so long as standards in effect at the time the NRC approvss the closure plan are followed by the licensee, and the closure plan itself provides for passive maintenance measures only, the charge will be $250,000. Additional requirements proposed af ter that point by the DOE will not increase the payment. The DOE should examine each site for a LTSP on a site-specific basis, consistent with NRC criteria, 133,g333: Commenter is correctly interpreting what this section means.
That y
is, if the long-ters care licensee desires to have requirements in the LTSP that are over and above those of Appendix A, the charge to the existing licensee would not be affected. We will add a reference to the material on page 3974 to the more detailed discussion in Section V, The Long-Ters Surveillance Plan, Title II. It should be clear that the $250,000 is a maxiumum charge in 1978 dollars and, therefore, the actual amount paid at closure will be significantly higher.
4 Commenter 2: Robert M. Quillin, Director, Radiation Control Division, Colorado Department of Health.
t Comment 2.1: The rule includes no direct, explicit provision for state concurrence in a Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) prepared by the federal government. This comment was provided in our letter of October 21, 1988 (copy enclosed) and was g addressed Section VIII, comments on the ANPRM, of your February 6,1990 F,R notice.
,e,
i 4
L *J t.
f Response: This comment was responded to in NRC's detailed comment analysis and -
is repeated below.
The ANPRM and proposed rule did not provide for specific State concurrence in
% the NRC licensing actionsj because the State has no regulatory authority under the AEA during the long-term care period. The State, as a member of the general public, may comment on any action to be taken by the NRC. We would like to note that, for the Title II sites, the State, at its option, can be the custodial governmental agent and, therefore, become the responsible party to prepare and implement the LTSP under the general license issued by the NRC.
If significant environmental consequences occur at either Title I or Title II sites in the future, the failure will not likely be as a result of the LTSP, but will most likely be as a result of an inadequate design or construction,
.both of which the State has been integrally involved. The commenter appears to over estimate the purpose of the LTSP which is the surveillance of the reclaimed or closed site, not the performance of significant maintenance work.
The performance of significant work at licensed sites under this regulation requires specific authorization from the NRC.
The commenter incorrectly states that the State has the authority to inspect and to require actions at licensed sites under long-term care. The authority y $ ' to license, ins t,andgforcetherequirementsforlong-terscareunderthe s
,AEA b b.
_ N hTi Commissio g N.
Comment 2.2: 'As before, please be advised that all of Colorado's Title I sites p
are either specifically licensed (6) or regulated under the general criteria of Part XI of Colorado's Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control.
Over twenty years of experience with inactive site maintenance and interia stabilization shows this to be essential.
Response: Noted. The NRC licensing mechanism will provide for perpetual care of these disposal sites.
l
., -. ~
Comment;2.3: A flew in the proposed rule which requires correction is the apparent promise that a Long-Term surveillance Plan (LTSP) will be prepared only after closure and license termination. Colorado requires and will continue to require the development and establishment of an adequate LTSP and Fund prior to termination of'a commercial uranium mill site license. The language of the proposed rule should be modified to clarify this option.
x ResDonte:
Commenter is incorrectly reading the proposed rule. The LTSP will be prepared during site closure.
See Section V, The Long-Tere Surveillance Plan. Under normal circumstances, the NRC will not terminate the specific license until an LTSP has been accepted by NRC.
See the response to Comment 1.1 for the procedures in unusual cases.
Comment 2.4: No active maintenance is the goal of 10 CFR 40, Appendix A.
Colorado's comments on NRC's uranium mill rules have strongly supported 1
reclamation which keep long-term monitoring and maintenance to the minimum.
However, at some sites in Colorado where milling and milling impacts have occurred for many years, the Radiation Control Division expects the amount of a
-site-specific long-term care fund to be substantially greater than $250,000 in 1978 dollars. The proposed rule fails to address the dedication of such funds to care of a specific site, if and when transfer of the site to the federal government should occur. The rule should provide mechanisms toward assuring that adequate funds will continue to be available.
Response: Commenter is correct that for sites transferred to the Federal Government-funds are not dedicated for a specific site. They are deposited into the general Treasury (see 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A, Criterion 10).. The DOE must request federal funds to implement the LTSP. 7k. MAC bt' b
's Mt % d k*r OM M8 Ma b M
&g (
' % da.se.~s tsemJ6s, da toke.%Ak te&-dh. *~d. f LA &ckl &%<
L UJ.Cmsor de al.tes A plc ft f
%. % me,:hea' M %1 k e.x s d i
Comment 2.5: No specific language in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,ppas A%A c.,
L amended, or in 10 CFR, requires the particular general license' approach to custody and long-term care ' presently chosen. NRC's approach takes cognizance of the reserved obligation in 10 CFR 150.15a(b)(4) and (5) concerning minimum
. standards for long-term monitoring, surveillance, and maintenance of land used y$ff[ & d6C.
v&Y Y'.r C. N f/
hh f
'M*
g G J k c a< 6.r n g.
A
a:.-e,-
6-j
---e-A,
[
6 l
I as a disposal site for byproduct materials. I.s specifically authorized by the Act, however, LTSPs for Colorado Title 11 sites may be required to meet more stringent state requirements.
-, h Response: As an Agreement State, Colorado may impose more stringent operating and closure requirements than that required by the NRC, However, once the license is terminated, the requirements for an acceptable LTSP and enforcing its implementation are solely those of the NRC.
(See response to comment 2.1)
If a State wishes to become the long-term care licensee, they may add more stringent requirements in the LTSP than what is required by this rule.
However, any costs resulting from requirements more stringent than those in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A shall not be charged to the existing licensee.
o Commenter 3: Mark L. Matthews, Project Manager, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office, 00E.
Comment 3.1: General Comment.
The language in the Supplementary Information is often not consistent with the intent of the amendments. The most commonly occurring such inconsistency is the use of the word " site" when " disposal site" or in a few cases " processing site" should be used.
It is noted that the amended language in the Proposed Rule clarifies that surveillance and maintenance for the Title I sites-will be required only at disposal sites; however, there are still several areas where Commission policy is not clearly defined. The regulations clearly state that the general license will be issued for the "long-term care of the disposal site" and that issuance of the general license is contingent upon (1) receipt of a surveillance and maintenance plan for the disposal site and (2) the Commission's concurrence that "the remedial action is complete." The Commission states in this Proposed Rule that full concurrence for any given " site" will not be forchcoming until the aquifer restoration phase of the UMTRA Project has been completed for that site. It is not clear from the Proposed Rule, even with the proposed twc
=
7 phases for licensing, if " full licensing" is conditional upon groundwater restoration at any processing site, or at just the sites where the materials were stabilized in place.
It is assumed that " site" in this context applies to the processing site whether or not it is also a disposal site.
B_esponste: We will clarify the language to be more specific regarding disposal versus processing site.
Commenter incorrectly assumes long-term care licensing would be conditional if the tailings are moved from the processing site. The i
disposal site may be licensed even though ground water cleanup is continuing at the processing site.
There will be a difference in how the two step licensing approach will be used depending upon whether the site has been stabilized in place or moved. The two step approach, as it will apply for this LTSP and licensing, will only be used for sites stabilized in place.
For sites that are moved there will be no ground water restoration at the new site and the old site will not have an LTSP or license associated with it. When DOE moves a site, the original processing i
site will be cleaned-up to meet EPA standards for unrestricted use. When this is the case NRC will not license these processing sites, i.
For sites stabilized in place and requiring additional ground water j
restoration, the LTSP will cover all the elements identified in the proposed
)
rule, except for ground water restoration actions. The LTSP may still require j
ground water monitoring to insure that actions taken for ground water restorations are'not affecting the integrity of the stabilized pile. For example if ground water restoration activities are impacting leaching through the pile, monitoring under the LTSP should be able to identify this and require any necessary corrective actions.
In summary, regardless of whether residual radioactivo material is relocated or not the custodial agency will be an NRC general licensee at the disposal site only. If ground water restoration at the processing site is necessary when the material is relocated, this will have no impact on the general license for the disposal site.
If ground water restoration is necessary for a site stabilized in place, then licensing will be done in two steps.
i l
g Comment 3.2: Specific Comments Comments on the Supplementary Infomation test are grouped by section, as provided in the Proposed Rule notice.
Paragraphsarenumberedbysection.Teft from the proposed rule is provided in sufficient detail to clarify the comment.
Pertinent phrases for discussion are underlined.
Section I.
Background
1.
The word " site" appears throughout the text. Although " disposal site" generally is the implied definition, it is not always so; therefore, the term should be clearly stated as such, or as " processing site" when appropriate.
Response: We will add clarifying language.
Comment 3.3:
2.
Paragraph 2, sentences 1 and 2:
" Title I of UMTRCA... remedial action L
program for inactive uranium mill tailinos sites. Title I requires that, l
upon completion of the remedial action program by the DOE, these sites be l
cared for..."
Comment:
(
i.
Consistent with Section 104(f)(2) of the UNTRCA, which governs the l
custody of any property transferred to the DOE or other designated j
Federal agency, the-license granted by the NRC will be for the long-tere care of the disposal sites. The following revision is suggested:
" Title I requires..., the permanent disposal sites be cared for..."
l l~
Response: We will make this change.
1 i
m
i 9
o t
Comment 3.4:
Section II.. Proposed Action 1.
Second paragraph, last sentence:
...upon receipt of an LTSP that meets l
the requirements of the general license..."
Comment: It is noted that in this paragraph and in other sections of the text the word " receipt" is used; however, in the proposed regulation, 40.27, " acceptance" is the wording.
t Responte; The meanings are the same.
If an LTSP is received that meets the requirements of the general license, it is acceptable.
Comment 3.5:
2.
Paragraph 4, first sentence:
"The general licensees for long-term care I
are exempted from 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 21..."
Comment:
1.
There are no provisions in the regulations which state explicitly that the general licenses are exempt from 10 CFR Parts 19-21, as discussed in the proposed action. _ The Commission should evaluate the need to include this in the regulations, consistent with the exemption specified for Section 40.7, Employee protection.
i Response: These provisions are in $40.27(e) and $40.28(e).
Comment 3.6:
3.
Paragraph 7, first sentence: " Criterion 12 only deals with Title II licensees.... Title I should have comparable reporting requirements...."
10 Commeg:
1.
The regulations should specify that reporting requirements comparable to Appendix.4, criterion 12, are applicable to Title I disposal sites.
Response
The current wording provided 00E with more flexibility in developing reporting requirements for Title I sites. However, since 00E is requesting this change we will add it to the rule.
Comment 3.7:
4.
Paragraph 8. first sentence:
"There are some differences in requirements for sites located on Indian lands...."
Comment:
1.
For those sites where the disposal facility is on Indian lands, the tribes will retain ownership of the material and the land. An exception is provided in Section 105(b) of the UMTRCA, which states that in those cases where the residual radioactive material from processing sites on Indian land is relocated to a permanent disposal-area not on Indian land, the DOE shall acquire title to the residual radioactive material in addition to the disposal site. This should be stated in the text.
Response: -We will add this information.
Comment 3.8:
- 11. Suggested revisions to the last sentence:
"Four of the Title I processino sites, of which three will be used as disposal sites, are on Indian land.
We will add this,gksth&
Response
. P
+4
+Mt in I ",n :ite: :n 504 4t;;;;d it tM c::: 'n:ti
..f M MMdJ K
a sph, d wAu &
7 g4 4 p+ a d v
n
33 i
Comment 3.9:
5.
Paragraph 10, first sentence: "Both 40.27 and 40.28 allow for potential future uses of the sites..."
Consistent with the UNTRCA, Section 104(h), at the Title I disposal sites, only subsurface mineral rights will be available for future use. However, ct the processing sites, once the surface remedial actions are completed, surface rights will be available as long as the use does not impede future groundwater restoration activities. This should not be confused with the Title II disposal sites, where subsurface and surface richts will be available, considered on a cas.9 by case basis. This should be clarified in the text.
' Response: Section VI will be clarified.
Comment 3.10:
Section III. Uranium Mill Tailinas Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 1.
Paragraph 3, sentence 4: "When aroundwater restoration is completed, the Long-Ters Surveillance Plan would be appropriately amended."
Comment:
1.
It is not clear here or in the regulations as to which sites this includes. The following revision is suggested:
"At sites where the remedial action was stabilization in olace, when groundwater restoration is completed the Long-Tere Surveillance Plan would be appropriately amended."
Response: The paragraph will be clarified by modifying the first sentence to read "As a result of this Act, the NRC is planning to allow licensing of Title I disposal sites, where the tailings are not being moved, to occur in two steps, if needed."
u o
Comment 3.11:
2.-
Paragraph 4, first sentence:
"The Act itself did not address... requiring mandatory post-closure performance monitoring."
Comment:
1.
" Post-closure" is not the appropriate term for Title I sites where remedial action rather than closure activities are performed; also, 40 CFR 192 requires compliance monitoring rather than performance monitoring (or " screening" and " detection" monitoring).
For consistency with the language and the purpose of these two UMTRCA Programs, the following revision is suggested:
... requiring mandatory compliance monitoring...
)d.C cucuv wifA Tiv. ce*gW e do Md
-Response: We will clarify this sentence to read:
... requiring monitoring after th O -i'ir ' t c...
...............a1.ea."
We specifically did not use EPA terms which might cause confusion. These tems have specific meanings in L
the EPA ground water standards and therefore might imply requirements which are l.
not appropriate.
L Comment 3.12:
t i
Section IV: The Stabilization and Long-Term Care Program (Title I and Title II) l Title I (24 Sites):
l l
[
1.
Paragraph 5, second sentence:
... decontamination, decommissioning, and p
reclamation..."
Comment i.
These are words that have a more appropriate meaning for sites that already have a license, which Title I sites specifically do not have.
~
l
13
" Remedial action" should be used here instead, as it is more
\\
appropriate for Title I sites.
Response: We will change the sentence to read, "... remedial action (which includes decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation)..."
Comment 3.13:
2.
Paragraph 6, first sentence:
"NRC concurrence...that reclamation of the site..."
Comment:
1.
Suggest changing " reclamation" to " remedial action," given the differences in the requirements for Title I and II sites.
Response: We will make this change, l
Comment 3.14:
3.
Paragraph 6, sentence 5. "When ground water restoration is completed, the LTSP will be appropriately amended."
Comment:
1.
As noted in the general comments in Section A, it is not clear if the two phased licensing approach is restricted to the sites stabilized in place (SIP), or to all Title I sites, including the relocated
. disposal sites.
Response: Only applies to SIP sites. See response to Comment 3.1.
Clarification will be added to this paragraph.
l l
14 -
-Comment 3.1$:
4.
Paragraph 7, sentence 3:
' concurrence with completion indicates that the site has been stabli ed in accordance with EPA standards..."
Comment:
1.
As this sentence is written, it is not clear if " stabilization" refers to actual completion of Subpart A requirements or to
" completion of remedial action," as is stated elsewhere throughout the text and in the regulations.
_ Response: The sentence will be clarified to read as follows: NRC concurrence with DOE's performance of the remediation-indicates that DOE has demonstrated that the remedial action complies with the provisions of the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A, B, and C.
Comment 3.16:
5.
Paragraph 7, last sentence: "There is no termination date for the general license."
Comment 1.
Since expiration periods are specified in the regulations for=other licensed facilities, that there is no termination to the general license for the Title I and II sites should be specified in'the regulations.
Response: We will add this to the rule.
15
.4
.f Comment 3.17:
Title 11 1.
Paragraph 4, item 5: "... Title I sites have been reclaimed..."
Comment-1.
"Remediatsd" rather than " reclaimed" should be used to reference the activities at Title I sites.
.Resnanse:
Item 5 will be clarified to read as follows:
"The determination i that remedial action at Title I disposal sites has been completed may be done in two steps, whereas the determination for Title II sites will be done only i once before license termination."
wo k #.
W nk bu
'c0 >>*J+go(
Comment 3.18:
n Section V.
The Lona-Term Surveillance Plan (Title I and II)
Title I:
1.
Paragraph 5:
"If it is determined that groundwater monitoring is required..., then it should be conducted in two phases, screening...and evaluative monitoring."
Comment:
1.
The terms " screening" and " detection" are not consistent with proposed 40 CFR 192.
" Compliance monitoring, compliance strategy, and corrective action program" are more accurate terms for Title I disposal sites.
h e: These terms were used and explained because they provide the meaning that NRC believes is appropriate. We specifically did not use EPA terms which might cause confusion. These terms have specific meanings in the EPA ground O
e 16 water standards and, therefore, might imply requirements which are not appropriate. [ }' O Comment 3.19:
2.
Paragraph 6: " Initial surveillances shocid include the acquisition and interpretation of aerial photography."
Comment:
1.
Aerial photographs of the Title I sites are taken immediately upon
. completion of the construction and after the permanent surveillance features have been installed. The photographs are used to prepare the final topographic map and as-built drawings and are kept in the permanent site file for future reference, should a problem develop at the site.
In the unlikely event that a problem (such as erosion) should occur, the photographs provide baseline information about site conditions. New serial photographs are taken if it becomes necessary to monitor a problem over a long period of time.
Response: We will modify this paragraph to incorporate the comment.
Comment 3.20:
B.
Comments on Amendments to 10 CFR 40 This section provides comments which address the proposed changes to the Part 1
g
- 40. regulations as they are listed in the Proposed Rule. The proposed'1anguage p
for each part is provided for reference. However, the text is not reproduced L
in its entirety, but rather in portions of sufficient length to higtlight the I
significance of the comment. Phrases which are subject to comment are underlined.
o I
.t 17 I*
1.
Part 40.1, Purpose, i
'(a). The: regulations in this part establish procedures and criteria for the. issuance of licenses to receive title to, receive, possess, use, transfer, or deliver source and byproduct materials....These regulations also provide for disposal and long-term care of byproduct and residual radioactive material, t
Comments:
For'the reasons stated below, we suggest that the sections I
above be amended to read:
" receive title to.... transfer, deliver, or dispose of source and byproduct materials, as defined.in this part....The regulations also provide for the l;
long-term custodial care of byproduct and residual radioactive materials."
1.
There are no procedures or regulations within Part 40 which affect or pertain to the disposal of the residual radioactive material at Title I sites. The disposal procedures for the Title I sites are defined 4
l in 40 CFR 192. As stated in the " Introduction to Appendix A,"
Appendix A of 10 CFR 40 outlines procedures for the disposal of l;
byproduct material at active uranium and thorium sites, exclusively.
l For these reasons, including the term " disposal" in concert with "long-ters care of... residual radioactive saterial" is misleading with regard to the Title I sites. However, under the provisions of 10 CFR 40, which provides regulations for the disposal of the Title II byproduct material, inclusion of " disposal" in this section of the regulations is required. The revisions suggested here are consistent with the language in the proposed revision to Part 40.3, License requirements (55 FR 3978).
Responne: The regulations established for disposal of source material are covered under 10 CFR Part 61. Byproduct material disposal under Part.40 is j
regulated as an activity incidental to the extraction of source material at l
uranium or thorium processing facilities.
Such a change to $40.1 is not within the scope of this rulemaking.
'A-
~-,
~..
4 Lisiting'long-term care to only custodial care would limit the possibility of I
planned maintenance activities under Appendix A (see the Introduction and Criterion 10). This section will be clarified to read as follows:...These regulations also provide for the disposal of byproduct material and for the long-term care of byproduct material and residual radioactive material.
Comment 3.21:
L 2.
Part 40.2a, Coverace of inactive tailinos sites.
(a) Prior to the completion of remedial action....for the possession of residual radioactive enterials...if the site... Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. The Commission...in the execution of the remedial action pursuant to title I of the Uranium a
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended.
i After remedial actions are completed, the Commission will license the lono-term care of sites, where residual radioactive materials are disposed, under the recuirements set out in 40.27.
r Comments:
For the reason stated below, we suggest that the first sentence above be amended to read:
" Prior... Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as
~
amended."
l, 1
1.
The second reference to the UMTRCA, but not the first, includes "as amended."
l Response: We will make this change.
l'
19 I,'
Comment 3.22:
3.
Part 40.4. Definitions.
" Residual radioactive material means:...(2) other waste...at a processing site which relates to such processing.... This ters is used only with respect to materials at sites subject to remediation under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailinas Radiation Control Act of 1978 "
gements:
We suggest amending this definitien to read:
"(2)...This term is used only with respect to radioactive materials Esociated with processing operations at sites subject to remedial action...of 1978, as amended."
1.
Since the concept of a disposel site, specifically described, appears first in 40.2a, the use of " sites subject to remediation" could be misleading here.
11.
"...as amended." should modify the UMTRCA to ensure consistency within the regulations.
Aaanoau: To make the first change might appear to imply that remedial actions are limited to concerns for only the radiological component of the waste.
UMTRCA stipulated regulatory control with respect to radiological and nonradiological impacts. The second change will be made.
Comment 3.23:
4.
Part 40.7, Employee protection.
(f) The general licenses provided in 40.21, 40.22, 40.25, 40.27. and 40.28 are exempt from paragraph (e) of this section.
Comments:
1.
Paragraph (e) requires posting of Fom NRC 3, " Notice to Employees." Since the UMTRA disposal sites are designed for passive maintenance with no permanent on-site personnel, it is prudent to include 40.27 and 40.28 in this exemption.
Response: Noted. This is what was done.
Comment 3.24:
5.
Part 40.20. Tyoes of licenses.
(a) Licenses for source material, byoroduct material and residual radioactive material are of two tyoes: general and specific...
(regulations define types of licenses here).
(b) Section 40.27 contains a general license applicable for custody and long ters care of residual radioactive material at uranium mill tailinos disoosal sites remediated under the (UMTRCA) of 1978.
(c) Section 40.28 contains a general license...of byproduct material at uranium or thorium mill tailings disposal sites under Title II of the (UMTRCA) of 1978.
Comments:
We suggest amending this section to read:
(a) " Licenses for source and byproduct material are of two types:
general and specific.
Licenses for residual radioactive materials l
are general licenses."
i.
As the regulation is stated in paragraph (a) of 40.20, there is the implication that Title I and II disposal sites are eligible for i
either a specific or general license, when in fact this is not the l
l l
l
--.-.-n.
,.--,--,n.
._.~,--nn.,
-,-.-n
21 case as stated in paragraphs (t,) and (c).
The same is true for 40.3 License requirements.
- 11. Use of the phrase " uranium mill tailings disposal sites" is beneficialagiteliminatesanyconfusionorambiguityregarding J
licensing redirements and long tem care activities.
iii. We note that the te
" custody" ears in both paragraphs (b) and (c), not shown 4t<,
was deleted from 40.1_.
=
h L U ~d-$
Saananne: Section (a) C 4 revised as suggested.
f WU k.
- lM '
E,k Q mr**
- Comment 3.25:
AIM g l' 6.
Part 40.27, general license for lono-term care of DOE remedial action sites.
(a) A general license is issued for the long-tern care, including monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures,necessary..., for remediated uranium oill tailinas sites under Title 1 of ties (UNTRCA), as amended. The license is available only to the (00E), or another Feoeral agency designated by the President to provide long term care. The purpose of this general license is to ensure that uranium stil tallines sites will be cared for in such a manner...af ter remedial action is completed.
(b) The general license in paragraph (a) of this section becomes effective when the Cumnission accoots a site Long-Ters Surveillance Plan (LTSP) that meets the requirements of this section and when the Commission concurs with the (D0E's) detemination of completion of remedial action at each site. The LTSP may incorporate by reference information contained in documents previously submitted to the Commission...Each LTSP must include-(1)
A legal description...
i y_.,
we-:--.. - -
.w a
w--^~-*~-ve**--*-**'"'*"~
m (2) A detailed description, which can be in the fom of a reference, of the final site conditions...If the site has continuing aquifer restoration requirements, then the licentino process will be com'leted in two phases...When the Commission concurs with the completion r1 nround water restoration, the licensee shall assess the need to.odify the LTSP...If the proposed modifications meet the requirements of this section, the LTSP will be considered suitable to accommodate the second phase.
(3) A description of the long-term surveillance program....
(4)... criteria for follow-up inspections...
(5)... criteria for... maintenance or emergency measures.
Paragraphs (c) through (e) are not listed here.
Comments:
1.
Since the license is issued for the curtody and long-term care of the disposal sites, it would be more appropriate to, change "remediated uranium mill tailings sites" to " disposal sites." As the language stands,
" uranium sill tailings sites" does not accurately describe the purpose and intent of the licensing requirements,
- 11. We do not support the change from " receives" to " accepts" for a site LTSP.
iii. This section should include language that makes it clear that only conditional concurrence will be granted on all remedial action plans until all groundwater restoration issues at processing sites are resolved.
iv. We support the addition of the paragraph stating that the license becomes effective'only upon completion of two matters: (1) receipt of the LTSP and (2) concurrence with the DOE's determination of completion of the remedial action.
O e
ww-n
" ^
We support the nec two phased approach to licensing as we recognize the v.
postponement of licensing pending completion of 40 CFR 192 Subpart 8 issues would prohibit an effective implementation of long-tem care at the disposal sites, vi.
We support the deletion of the requirement from paragraph (b)(2) that requires the LTSP to provide details on aquifer restoration at the disposal sites.
vii. Part 40.27 should specify that routine site inspections will be conducted and a report will be submitted to the NRC that summarizes all surveillance j
and maintenance actions and certifies that site Itcensing requirements continue to be met. Or, language should be added that specifies where these criteria tan be found. As soecifian in the IntrMurtian. Critaria 12 Appendix A is applicable here.
i viii. "(b)(2)... existing groundwater characterization" should be changed to
"... existing groundwater characterization, and compliance strategy for groundwater protection in accordance with proposed regulations set forth in 40 CFR 192."
Responsei 1.
We will make this change.
ii.
NRC has made this change to provide a better level of control over the licensing process.
If the NRC receives an acceptable LTSP, the long-term care licensee would not be impacted in any way.
If an unacceptable LTSP-is received it provides the NRC an opportunity to work with the long-tem care licensee to correct the deficiencies prior to licensing.
iii. This section and rule deal only with long tem care licensing.
The remedial action plan include activities that may have no relevance towards licensing.
For example, if a disposal site is relocated free a processing site, the processing site will receive NRC concurrence that it has been cleaned up, but would not be licensed. See the response to Comment 3.1 for additional details.
,,,._.. -.,. --- ~ - -'
24 iv. Noted.
However, receipt has been changed to accepts, f
(v w V
- N
[ /v Aa' 6
/
1.
N f
- vit, will add t s reme t.
Q y
,g, viii. Tiie NRC does not wish to reference proposed EPA rules in our final rules. However, the sentence will be modified to read, "... including p\\b existing ground water characterization and any necessary ground water hi protection activities or strategies."
Y g, 4.I, p % u. <e d s e. J w f e gl u d ( v h
- U 6 *J V
u;u <.La kJ--
Comment 3.26:
7.
Part 40.28, General license for lono-tem care of uranium or thorium byproduct materials sites.
(text not shown here)
Comment:
1.
For Title II sites on Indian lands, language should be added that states that these sites will be considered on a site-by-site basis.
Resnonte:
Licensing of Title II Indian sites is covered in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A Criterion 11F and is not part of this rulemaking. These sites will be hancied on a site-by-site basis.
Commenter 4:
Richard E. Sanderson, Director, Office of Federal Activities, EPA.
Comment 4.1: 40.27(b) (2) -- This section requires that a groundwater characterization be performed prior to licensing.
It should also present guidance as to what is an acceptable characterization.
l
Response
During the remedial action at the sites, DOE is fully characterizing M ground water.
DOE will provide ground water characterization infomation during certification of completion at each site.
To meet the requirements of I
this section, DOE would merely summerize or reference existing information.
The section states that the characterization must be detailed enough so that l
future inspectors will have a baseline to determine changes to the site and when these changes are serious enough to require maintenance or repairs.
We believe that this is the proper level of detail for this rulemaking.
Comment 4.2:
40.28(d)(1) -- This section allows for future use of remediated cr closed sites as long as there is no endangerment of human health and the environment.
The rule or preamble should specify exactly the types of studies a 1teensee must submit to prove that the use will never cause endangerment.
Further, the rule should require the placement of a notice in the land title or deed which identifies the site as being used for uranium or thorium mill tailings disposal.
Y (N*
Response
In all cases, either the di seel site wt W ho owned y the Federal or State Government under license by NRC.
No further use of t site can be done without a specific NRC license.
Since any future use of probablybeveryrareandofuncertainpurpose,puttingthis/thesesiteswould level of detail intotheruleorstatementofconsiderationisinappropriatekIfandwhenan application for future use is requested the NRC (and the long term care licensee) would handle this on a case-by-case basis.
Depending upon the potential future use, existing NRC rules and guides would probably establish a good basis to ensure public health an safety and e envi noen are et endan*
- g G d h d E 's' W.
4 rpV' 4
N
g &d.liiku J & mu,bu,Q hD y&
hk w A HU ve.4,, Ate wkysb $see W rM&.
tkch (Y IOY comment 4.3:
40.28(d)(3) -- This section pero ts future use of the site if a license for such use is granted.
The licensee must secure financial arrangements to assure that the site will be restored if the byproduct materials are disturbed.
The rule should require the preparation of a closure plan in those cases where disturbance is anticipated as part of future use.
_----- --__ -_-- _ - ------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.. _. _ _. -.,,.., _ _... - -. - -.,. -.. ~.
~
zo gggpe:
In the situation described by the commenter, a closure plan would be an obvious part of the specific license.
No financial plan could be developed and approved without having a closure plan.
Comment 4.4:
Appendix A to Part 40 -- This section requires annual inspections of licensed sites.
EPA recommends that the inspections be conducted semi-annually for the first five years after closure or remediation, with annual inspections thereafter.
The first five years is the time period when most problems occur.
Rennnnse:
This requirement was developed in a previous rulemaking and the NRC sees no reason to change. Existing Title II sites will require years of closure and monitoring activities prior to obtaining a long-tem care license.
However, if a particular site leads the NRC to believe that more frequent inspections are necessary, this would be included in the site-specific LTSP.
Commenter 5:
John E. Schrote, Deputy Assistant Secretary Policy Management and Budget. DOI.
Comment 5.1:
Currently, the Department finds that the proposed regulation indicates that ground water monitoring may be required as part of the long-term surveillance plan.
The Department also suggests that it may be appropriate to monitor wetlands located in relative proximity to uranium mill tailings sites t
as part of the long-tem surveillance plan.
Wetlands can be critical to fish and wildlife in the area, and the maintenance of their integrity and beneficial uses should be considered in developing the long-term surveillance plan.
l
. Response:
Contamination of wetlands in proximity to a disposal site would be i
extremely unlikely if the surface integrity of the site is maintained and monitoring wells show no contamination.
If the surface integrity were breached, the LTSP would require that it be fixed.
However, if a particular site leads the NRC to believe that wetlands monitoring is necessary and feasible, it would be included in the site-specific LTSP.
i l
l i
l i
~ _ _ -
c ENCLOSURE 2 Document Name:
LTC RULE Requestor's ID:
$ULLIVAN Author's Name:
MARK HAISFIELD Q
AcpacA/#T4th p ooco nt co nts:
iong-term car. rui.
0 $ $,i, & ' y$ ~n W
.1
?,Q, sy M'
of, 4
im+y ej'.M y-ymd Aab,
S MrA.?% akb' ffy
.p '
fu t w, ona
.M c4p.
yw c-im
{
sf una% yd s'
V
_a w k, d.
AM cil) seaG e d '
p Ve C
sedh i s d n.u y A.Mu-M'
'rsJ i
L o
v amm t
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com !$510N 10 CFR Part 40 Custody of Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
Ak/
\\
ACTION: Anspeed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuc.1 ar Regulatory Comission (NRC) is(;r:;::i=: *^)issu[ general lie.enses that permit NRC to license the custody and long-term care of reclaimed or closed uranium or thorium mill tailings sites after remedfal action or closure under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act have 4 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 II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued on August 25, 1988 4,t /' 4 [Wp**# '
j VVN wn.t User / en h heay 4, M M.
~
I.DAT : Cosnent eriodexpires(75daysafterpublication). Cossents received gg afte this date ill be consider 6d if it is practical to do so, but the Cossiis ion is abl to assure consideration only for comments received on or Lbefarm is data-efhs y !ds 10 $ I'NW A 'O -
ff/scr)ft MTR ! (so hy h
f ADORE t$: M
- to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission, i
Washing
';80665, tion: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver O
comments
- ) ' White 11pt North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
,between 7:
as and 4:15 n= F-da-*' r ' t :.
Cossents received, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant O
impact, and the regulatory analysis can be examined att The NRC Public nu - at naa= S1Sn L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
s FOR FURTHER INFD MATION CONTACT:
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission, Washin Telephone (301) 492 3877.
20555, Mail Stop NLS 260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORNATION:
I.
Background.
Proposed Action.
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988.
IV.
TheStabilizationandLong-TermCareProgram(TitleIandTitle!!).
V.
The Long-Term Surveillance Plan (Title I and Title II).
VI.
Future uses of the Disposal Site.
i de 7 * " e *e !!: = ; A
_ ;4.)
VII.
VI!!.
Comments on the[""~a "ettec')ProposedRulemaking.
/n tit'= 'r 5 ? : "- U IX.
e L
9 X.
EPA Clean Air Act Activities.
XI.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability.
XII.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
XI!!. Regulatory Analysis.
XIV.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement.
XV.
Backfit Analysis.
XVI.
4 List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40.
l I.
Background
In the,
4till'Ta11tngsRadiationcontrolActof1978(UNTRCA)the Congress
, that" uranium mill tailings may pose a potentially signi-ficant radia health hazard to the pubitc. 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 LMTRCA defines the statutory authority and roles of the DepartmentofEnergy(00E)andtheNRCwithregardtotheremedialaction program for inactive uranium mill tailings sites.
Title I requires that, upon 2
I f erpuest b PS h
)
completion of the remedial action program by DOE, sites be cared for by the DOE or other Federal agency designated by the President, under a license issued by the Commission. Title II of UMTRCA contains similar requirements for NRC licensing of presently active uranium or thorium mill tailings sites following their closure and license termination. These sites would be licensed by the Comission upon their transfer to the Federal Government or the State in g
which they are located, at the option of the State. These W regulations will complement other UNTRCA 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 ), fm -nun Ine m,..,.ntM ::
- .t;
. m i. v vr....;
Um, x
_threa =cific +^W.
" :: rate ;. -. ;;e b.,.r.d i k= W 44..
6, thC:
fly f/.ptd rvA ides NCf!l
!?1 h A4"*
S Ulf [
ten w j
F A' 3!7').
II. Proposed Action The M regulatory additions to Part 40 will provide for two new general licenses. The general licenses in 640.27 and $40.28 will correspond to Title I and Title !! of UNTRCA, respectively. The provisions in 640.27 would apply to inactive sites and the provisions in 640.28 would apply to active sites. Although the requirements in 640.27 and $40.?8 will differ somewhat due to the differences in Title I and Title !! of the Act, the goals to be achieved t
by the long-term care licensee are the same.
l Theses;gd regulations deal only with uranium cr thorium mill tailings sites after r g ial'eettens (for Title !) or cicsure activities (for Title II) i have been to meet applicable closure standards. UNTRCA stipulates the Federet" rument(normallyDOE)asthelong-tfracrelicensee,and
- J thereby the owner, except in the case of a Title II[i[e where the State may elect to be the long-ters care licensee.
In lieu of any such State election, the Federal government will become the long ters care licensee. The NRC will h
receive a detailed Long-Tern Surveillance Plan (LTSP) from 00E or an
/
)r appropriate State which will discuss ownership (whether Federal or State),
te conditions, the surveillance program, required follow-up inspections, and how and when emergeng repairs and, if necessary planned maintenance, will be 3
O d
i accomplished. Unless the Commission is femally notified by the appropriate state, the DOE will submit the LTSP and will be the long term care licensee.
(See the section entitled 'The Long-Tem Surveillance Plan.") Thegenerg x license will become effective for each individual Title I or Title IFesus vrvn NRC receipt of an LT$P that meets the requirements of the general license and eitherNRCconcurrenceincompletionofremedialactions(TitleIsite)or termination of the Title !! site license.
Opub r itesgovernedbytheprovisionsof$40.27(TitleIsites),the y
general license appl.ies only to the DOE or another Federal agency designated by
(
the President. Fo governedundertheprovisionsof$40.28(Title!!
sites), DOE,oranotherFeoeralagency,willprepareandsubmittheLTSP, unless the State, at its option, decides to take custody of the site and be included in the general license.
In the latter case the State would prepare l
and submit the LTSP. The, authority to grant a long ters care license is
(
reserved to the NRC. States may be the long-tem care agency, but are not f
authorized to grant this type of license. (SeeSection83b(1)(A)ofthe l
AtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended,and10CFR150.15a.)
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 Part 20, and reporting of defects and noncompliance in Part 21. These parts deal with operational activities. A general license for long-term care covers activities after the operation and clean-up of the site has been completed.
Under n real circumstances the long-tem care licensee will spend a day or two Y Th h wt,
, yese;te confirm that the site's conditions are as expected.
4 at each4 with 40 CFR Part 1g2, Subparts A, B, a d C (for Title I g' sites) and part 40 Appendix A criteria (for Title !!j iites),which essentially eliminate direct radiatiop and air particulates and control raden g
releases within specified limits to closure will, therefore, eliminate the need for specific radiation controls as specified in Parts 19, 20, and 21 under normal conditions.
. bkP"O If damage to tnemte requires significant repairs, then the long-tem care licensee must notify NRC and describe the necessary repairs. Since worker l
4 1
h
_ _ - - ~ - - -.
4 h./4rf D 7
Y
~ ~
$o-For those sites where the disposal facil y is o In.dian lands, the ttibes will retain ownership of e materia the landh An l
I exception is provided in SectionMthe UMTRcA.Iich states that in those cases where the residual radioactive material from processing sites on Indian land is relocated to a pemanent disposal area not on Indian land, the DOE shall acquire title to the residual I
radioactive material in addition to the disposal site.
l h
?
1 J d.,
,..& '~
~
- ~
't H-6
-6 Mme 0
- g
- - ~,.- - - - - - - - -.,
4 4
radiation protection and occupational exposure reporting any be necessary during such repair efforts, the long tem care licensee will identify the appropriate requirements of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, and 21 to be applied. NRC may then impose appropriate portions of the above parts or regulations by order on a site specific basis depending upon the damage and the type of repairs necessary.
A minor administrative change is being made to 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A Criterion 12 to allow for a more efficient reporting program. Critgrion12 states that inspection results swst be reported to the commission within 60 days following each inspection. Because each long tem care licensee primarily the Department of Energy, will most likely havgl,tip1hiN, s, we y
are proposing to al, low annual reports which will cover m ; sites under their
)t, jurisdiction. Any e where unusual damage or disruption is discovered during the inspection, however, would require a preliminary Mnspection report ta y
be submitted within 60 days. The timing for submittal of the annual report will be based on when the long-tem care itcensee will be doing the inspections and will be submitted within 90 days of the date of the annual insoection.cf hWINMJ M /WS#[7eY/* # #I Qj h & $ '- *.d ky g gi t$.' & IY W r w et the last site inspecte(.
Crib h M f* yid b Criterion 12 Meals with Title !! licensees.E'" '
'-- ---- ] M -
I!::::;; fe, 7;Uw a snovie nave c=v i.1...;;rttr; ?-"ir:-te, rhi;;,.;il/// M,/7 1: ;;;;ifi;d i 0 h ;.....-7.,
^... ; i i e... " '.;:.
4M y// 9p fer 7;*fA'.X sNC f.
There are some differences in requirements for sites locates on indian
(
lands. " r 7:G.'".'
t, ti: =:;..;,;p ;f ti;; :*t: ri?? ---' rith ti; y and OK have generally agreed thMs on Indian lands should The I
,same asaner as other Tit 1Ms. including conduct of be handled gf surveillance ander proposed $40.27. We also understand that DOE and the appropriateIndiantribeshag ed that DOE would provide for long-term he w/ 5e &*e 24 Titir.g,
- Mty #s/es es,g 0
t
/ (m hu k nsWet t*' lands.
M care. Fou of th mwr are on Indian ~'fu ~ rW f= k A"^~. h For Title s on Indian lands it is not clear who will be responsible for monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures at the site. Currently, the Western Nuclear $hemood Uranium Mill located in the State of Washington is the only site that falls into this category. UNTRCA provides that long-tem
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. Howev.er UMTRCA was not explicit as to which Federal agency is
)( responsible for NWiwI and should this site ever require emergency measures, additional authorizations may be required. The basic obligations for this site have alreaty been codified in 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A, Criterion 11F, and are not pcrt of this rulemaking. NRC is providing flexibility in this area and K
will work out long-tem care arrangements for thes Nsonacase-by-case basis.
Both 640.27 and $40.28 allow for potential futufe uses of t As provided in UMTRCA, any future use would require a separate Commission license to assure that the site remains or is restored to a safe and environmentally sound condition. See the, " Future Uses of the Disposal Site" section.
The ulemaking 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 rulemaking 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
/C may be appropriate
,Such communication will allow the long-term care licensee to better prepare the Long Tere Surveillance Plan by having more knowledge of how site closure was accomplished.
111. Uranium Mill Tailings Resadial Action Amendments Act of 1988 g..i This Ac@ signed ty the President on November 5,1988, and provides amongotherthage'.anextensionoftheUMTRCATitleIprogram.
It allows the Department of Energy until September 30,1994(previously1990)toperform remedial actions at designated uranium mill tailings sites and vicinity properties. There is one major exception to the 1994 date. The authority to perform ground water restoration activif @ is extended without limitation.
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 M^
~ - -. - - -
4 The rossen for the extension to 1994 is to allow DOE enough time to complete remedial 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 theEPAuraniummilltailingscleanupstandards(40CFRIg2.20(a)(23))for l
Title I sites were set aside and remanded to EPA. Based on the proposed EPA standards (52FR36000; September 24,1987), the DOE believes that ground water restoration activities will take significantly more time than originally l
planr.ed. The new standards have not yet been made final. Until final ground water standards are promulgated, UMTRCA requires that implementing agencies use the available proposed standards. -
fujne y% 4/mp art & hmf n'rtb ]
h f
a result of this Act, the NRC is planning to al ou licensing of Title.I A
K Ns occur in two p N, if needed. The first wouldallowDOE,ifj i
necessary, to do all remedial actions, which include complying with the ground water protection standare, addressing the design and performance at the disposal site for closure and licensing. The Act requires this to be completed i
3 prior to Septem6er 1994 The second
, which can go on for many more years, would coal with existing ground water restoration. When ground water restoration is completed, the Long-Term Surveillance Plan would be I
appropriately amended. Until the EPA standards are finalized, and DOE and NRC evsluate the sites based on these standards, we will not know how many sites would likely be involved in this two step licensing process, g
/
4' g TheActj,tseJfdidsetaddressthepotentialdelayoflicensingTitle!
i k
s due te p greemd water provisions in EPA's proposed standards requiring f.C - p s,
y-monitorin d NRC's options ranged from a M
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 annitoring program. Such a delay could extend for up to 30 years or more.
Based on interaction with other Federal agencies and the Co rossional K
1egislative history, the NRC staff has selected the two approach discussed above to optimize flexibility.
7
i WRC comments to IPA on their proposed standards suggested ways to remed the situation.
The final epa standards may resolve this issue, but could also introduce new uncertainties. Since the proposed [PA standards are legally binding until final rules are issued, this rule is designed to have flexibility to address various situations.
)
I V.
The $tabilization and Long-Term Care Program i
(TitleIandTitle!!)
11[pthough the end result for long-term care licensing for Title j-i ites is similar, the processes leading up to closure of Title I or Title !!
sites are different.
The following provides background on these processes, as well as some of the differences between Title ! and Title !! licensing.
Title 1(24 sites) j UMTRCA charged the EPA with the responsibility for promulgating remedial action standards for inactive urantua mill sites. The purpose of these standards is to protect the public health ano safety and the environment from radiological and non radlological hazards associated with radioactive materials at the sites. The final standards were promulgated with an effective date of March 7,1983 (48 FR 602: January 6,1983). See 40 CFR Part Ig2-Health and Environmental Protection for Uranium Mill Tailings, subparts A, 8, and C.
TheDepetsentofEnergy(DOE)willselectandexecuteaplanofremedial action that will satisfy the EPA standards and other applicable laws and regulations. g remedial actions must be selected and performed with the concurrence S the NAB.The required NRC concurrence with the selection and performance afhsod. remedial actions and the licensing of long-tem care of disposal sites will be for the purpose of ensuring coupliance with UNTRCA.
The portion of the EPA standards dealing with ground water requirements has been remanded by court action, and are currently being finalized by EPA (seetheprevioussectionformoredetails). 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
+v.+ws--w-w w
ew
.-.e-w,
of y
program would be inconsistent with Congress' intent,8r timely completion of the program. h difications 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 comensurate benefits in tems of human and environmental protection. Therefore, the Comission 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 final 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-tem protection against future ground water contamination. NRC does not view UMTRCA 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 wat 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.
crA/,dui\\
The second phase is the perfomance phase.
In this phase'the actual (v4d Sd,A decontaminatg.. decommissioning, and reclamatioh at the site is done in accordance witFthe Remedial Action Plan. The NRC and the State / Indian tribe, asapplicableIMastconcurinanychangestothisplan. 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. Priortolicensing,thenextphase,titletothedisposedjailingsand K
contaminated materials and the, land upon which they are disposed must be in 4
)(
Federalcustody(exceptfo tesonIndianlands)toprovideforlong-ters Federal control, at Federal expense.
i 9
f
. ?t_. si/n NJ.1r e.jn; prW).);f;y 4N p c en ggf pyu j
y y'
~
f
{X Xe rA esfer
/erj 4 ei g gf&/.. -
c/nedefj,g 44N A/
gg
,I 7y A
.i c
g.su.
4 s
..w.
4 e
m.
- 8'..p
'.Gm..
g,.,
gg,,
'**'O
- 6'W.=>.t
..g.,_.g "OO'*
a4.
4
"*.ib..
g,
, w
.h**
me g.4.
~
e es-m. m p
.m
...b
-e.e
lJn sdn $f grepfJingenko 1
N e
g renddlat NRC con rence in the DOE determination that ree4 emet 4en of the site has been acc 1 shed in accordance with the approved plan may be accomplished in y
two The Ura um Mill Tailings Remedial tion Amendments Act of 1988 4
allows for a two approach for Title s.
The Act will allow DOE to 3
do all remedial actions, other than ground water restoration, for the first Albfofclosureandlicensing. The second p k which can go on for many y
years, will deel with existing ground water restoration. When ground water y
restoration is completed, the LTSP will be appropriately amended. See the earlier discussion on this law for more de_ tails, fa,f f pos's yet(ere def & tem /she nllA
-/
3 net ka hs twor.Mt $t n(e to etyou com>4:.aAf AG /""Q)>
The thire phase is tne Itcensing pnase.
Ine general licensb is effective %
%following(1)NRCconcurrenceinthe00Edeterminationthatthehehasbeen properly reclaimed and (2) the formal receipt by NRC of an acceptable Long-Term Surveillance Plan. HRC concurrence with e n;;..;vn
.nvis....... 5 e f te ?:: -
h ; : :it'f r f " mera ^ = ;.;OTPA standard This NRC concurrence may be completed in twoM as discussed above and i the section on the Act.
There is no termination date for the general licen
[p cyg j$,/ d/,4/pd J Bs o./ C s
/ P th At := %;tiv. vi Fruposes Musemaziny i....J n t ;;;t T, !***
tk.
indi= 0;d Oe ini n6 sv yuv H a n F.v r. i ; wi...
7.; tin :p **eaipt of th '.T:7.. 4 p. vv iv a puo sic meetir.g sv ink;. t '?~1 a"M i c af na t t; = p'.7.; fe, t ;it: :dt;prv.14;er;;grt;it; t ;210; C ::t:.
m m. c. _... ;....o.;. ;.,..= = = e = = = =: =...,-.
M pi t i; i n1.'..
_ ;.; w i l i ;,. -...f fe..... ;t = tr -" e 5 + i;?] Pub l i c involvement has been and will continue to be provided through D0E's overall l
remedial action program for Title I sites and NRC's licensing program for Title II sites. Tht local public will have an opportunity to consent on the remedial S
action or closure plans proposed and implemented by DOE or the Title !!
Itcensee and d raise concerns regarding final stabilitation 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, MAC 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
r The final se of the program is surveillance and monitoring and begins afterNRC$bpp:$theLTSP.
In this phase DOE and NRC periodically inspect K
th h to ensure its integrity. The Long-Term Surveillance Plan will require g
the DOE to make repairs, if needed.
One of the requirements in the EPA standards is that control of the tailings should be designed to be effective for up to 1000 years without active maintenance. Although the design of the stabilized 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 !!
o f
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(48FR45946).
4 m mm, 3
(
Title I itesTaye active NRC or Agreement State licenses. Each licentee is responsible for having a closure plan that is approved by the NRC or en r
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 nest be closed in agner adtich seats applicable standards. These include the requirements agttained within 10 CFR Part 40 - Domestic Licensing of Source Material, or $1ar Agreement State requirements.
In addition, 10 CFR 150.15a requires that prior to the termination of any Agreement $ tate license for byproduct material, the Commission shall have made a deterstnation that all applicable standards and requirements have been met. Once the future long-tem care licensee has submitted a suitable LTSP, 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 to maintain control over 11 I
I e
a
~
$~~~> g w s
., /
~<
15 wU N
Myff4 f g, s-s A spy 4 p ak m ~+a irse 4 e n an rece4.
k f,
/$
c<a cwr
~
t Mg N
kh.
A 5,,4mnn sa.,g 4*d A
M 76 fit M
' W pp Eu y'
A -
7
=,,.
~
d' A W+ uHw?Y/~. sa, a c au mLu L
a
.wk~ w ruaaxsan,,sg 4 M is,u, p A g,x g
L %;mm Aw3 uul-k p;l'+ ks sk,.adla y L,
JJ G
M e h*x,
.a A d p aa t.
-~%
namegn o
-mm--.
I es in the unexpected situation when: (1)anacceptableLTSPhasnotbeen submittedt (2) the cur ntypecific license is ready to be terminated; (3) hRC y had determined that.th, ite has been closed in accordnace with applicable K standards and (4)f8t'e custody has been transferred to the long-term care Itcensee. The Consission could delay termination of the specific license until an acceptable LT P is submitted or issue an order requiring surveillance by the
)C custodian of the)dN, who will become the long ters care licensee general license. The Comissi.on pensiders either of these actions to be sufficient to ensure that thhte will be under surveillance and control during the transition period from the specific to the general license.
J/;M N The general license approach for Title !! sites is similar to the process used for Title I sites. The most significant differences are:
A State, at its, option, may take over long-term care of a Title 11 /hru/
f 1.
site instead of 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 y
transferrequirementsmaybewaivedforaTitle1(U#te.
1 s~n 3.
Potential future uses of a T.itle Imre are limited to subsurface y
p rights, whereas, a Title If,Ne could also potentially allow the usage of surface rights. (See the section entitled " Future Uses of g
the Disposal Site l
4.
Titlp.11 licensees are required to pay a minimum charge of $250,000
(
(1999 dellars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance. This chah umst 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 12ofAppendixA.[fce 7%. rec /M en4Yh/ "14 /
-7/m y
$d!Yelll0n* llM f YWlt E 9s o d /i G A Ari/s).
12
1 f &tEI HN
/
i st fs*l LlanfY j
t 5.
Thedeters{nationthatTitleUsites been._=xt may be done 4
in twoMi whereas the determination for Title !! ai. Sill be done only once before license termination, f
j 6.
There is an additiera1 Title !! requite g
Agreement State is terminated and thh,yt when a license ite transferred to the United States for long-term care. All funds collected by the State for long-term surveillance will be transferred to the United States.
)
This requirement has already been codified in Part 150 and is not part of this rulemaking.
J 7.
Title I covers designcted inactive uranium mill tailings sites.
l Title Il covers sites licensed as of January 1,1978 and new uranium
'and thorium mill tailings g
dO g fcL f u >onventional mi1Js licensed by H g.
f ade corporate y
decisions to _ t ;: SW sYt$Y.I- ':; "-- " *3*--f;; :r Mt'er.9 MeeL my- *
- a. - 4..<a.
% and....--6az ;i;;.
- tnta--
A:^hi' !e s -et--
^ ' - ** ' --..
- 4. v.,4nue
......s g a-, p -- u-M
' Wn W.
h h o w.irb r) **L Sb d & 4A N m cM kMaM V.
ine Long-Term surveillance 71an l
(TitleIandTitleII) dabel-
[
DOE, or the appropriate State, will submit a tite Long-Ters Surveillance n
Plaa to the NRC to coir. cide with completion of remedial actions (Title 1) or licensetermination(TitleII). 00E, or the appropriate State, will be responsible fgpreparing the LTSP since this document will clearly define their respone4M itie,s under the general 1{ cense. As discussed previously, the k
LTSP for Tit 1&' i tes will allow a tw approach as provided in the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action AmeNeents Act of 1988. The Act will allow DOE to do all remedial actions, other than ground ater restoration, for the first of closure and licensing. The first includes any y
performance or design features necessary to satisfy ground water protection y standards, except for ground water restoration. The second p k 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 modified.
13 m--es+._-+__~-wsweewe-,-ee-
>----v-
>e--y
=
Title !
The DOE has developed a ' Guidance for UNTRA Project Surveillance and Maintenance" document issued in January 1986. Copies of this document are 1
available from the U.S. Department of Energy, LNTRA Project Office. Albuquerque Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87115. This decu.
ment, which was developed with.!RC staff coordination, provides detailed generic guidance for what information should be considered in designing $
i
)(
4e LTSP for Title I te's.
The DOE guidance document addresses five primary activities. These activities, which are discussed in the following paragraphs, are:
y 1.
Def nition and characterization of fi conditions, i
y 2.)Teinspections.
I 3.
Ground water monitoring, if necessary.
4.
Aerial photography.
5.
Contingency (or emergency) repair, and planned maintenance if necessary.
- uly D0E indicated that fin e conditions should be defined and Y
characterized 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 ta ken. Survey monuments, site markers, and signs should be established. If A thehN LTSP specifies that ground water monitoring is required, then a network of manteering went should be identified and new wells established if
$5~.,
needed.
g g
m. m. _.. e,....., _.,_
...m. s.... f x t :. 1 DOE describes three types of inspections: Phase I, Phase !!
._... e t,m %-$ and contingency inspections. Annually scheduled 1 to 2-day phase I inspections would be conducted by a small team to identify any changes in conditions that any 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
+
A
.e lo w /' Je y Aerial photographs of the Title I sites ame taken immediately upon
[ I i
completion of the construction and af ter the permanent surveillance features have been installed. The photographs N ed to prepare wWer the final topographic map and as-built drawings and ace kept in the pemanent site file for future reference, should a probles develop at the site.
In the unlikely event that a problem (such as erosion) should occur, the photographs provide baseline infomation about site wud k conditions.
New serial photographs apeataken if it becomes necessary to monitor a problem over a long period of time.
4
}
M.
y iwh.
g'y v
l
-- --~
L l
Q p
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.
1 L
The need to monitor ground water conditions should be determined on a site specific basis.
If it is determined that ground water monitoring is required for the long term care at the site, then it should be conducted in two phases, screening monitoring and evaluative monitoring. Screening menitoring would be designed to detect changes in ground water quality attributable to the tailings.
If a significant change is apparent, evaldative monitoring should be initiated. Evaluative monitoring will be more extensive and will quantify the g
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.
hr Initial s eill ces should clude acquisition and inte rotation of aer 1 photogra Th principal p poses o aerial phet raphy er to aid y[
inspe tors in th field a to provide permane, visual cord of s te condit ns.Ohr{rfr::;.
- r
- : ;h;;.
h45 i';x pr'". M h ch"a", rr... i w,, gi;;., ph; :h;i be taken a the comp tion of photogr\\phywouldo remedial tion. Foi ow-up ao be don if the Pha JorPhase inspecti s identify a need for this.
i g
The LTSP should also describe the procedures the long-term licensee would follow if cosympency er emergency repairs were needed at the site due to extreme natsveFevants or purposeful intrusion.
i g.'
The conduct of custodial activities such as grass sowing or fence repair j
are not precluded.
If the long-term care licensee desires to conduct such custodial activities (temed " planned maintenance" in the D0E guidance document),suchactivitiesshouldbedescribedintheLTSP. However, it should be noted that such planned maintenance cannot be relied upon to ensure compliance with the EPA standards.
15
p,
Title II
- d^
Much of the above guidance can be applied to the Title
- However, the DOE guidance document includes additional information and recommendations for which the a g Title Ihi$s.pplicability must be evaluated on a site specific basis for
- Specific requirements for Title 11 sites are addressed in-Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
For Title 11 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 based on an annual inspection by the governmental agency retaining custody of.
the site to confirm the integrity of the stabilized tailings and to determine the need, if any, for maintenance and/or monitoring. The ac? val 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 (energency) repairs.
Because the tailings and wastes should be disposed of without the i
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 be authoriaed by considerationsofalternativesunderSection84(c)oftheAtomicEnergyActof 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 lupact Statement on uraniusmilling(NUREG-0706)1
&N g 445 i.f f +
g yeu bE N -
/ f n
A copies of NUREG-0706 may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7062.
Copies are also available from the National Technical Information 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 m_.
m.__. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _
__________._m
I hsM/
x a fine.I (w/m4:AG.scemw Af fn'ceum) si e n
rw era
.A>&</ sc AN
. +-
Q
..#}c.e w
ae /5 kN.4 owAld.
4 a4 /4 are pt--
f PA~
/r 4 m
m' u 4 pr} rad
~
scab lp4k
{
l
- 4 o
- 85
- ND*
V 48"O'
. Mme g
e 4 y
,een g gg. my..
- N. 8*
y
.-e
.t we
,L =
We9
@ sDB>4D.I
- e.*
ei...
.w-
. ~,,. -..
N6 9.$
s teh 4 e g.
4D g6 6 gm
- 1
- Wete sse a e.wh
.ee.
- .me.m e.hm.egsam.
m---
me ee en e-e se egne,me, me
_MN.
e6 9
O
..m
~ - * ~ - - - - ~
.S.
dium g
I b
. -+ w em m g=
e g %4
.-q,-
ens.
4 e
ma e
e..
-.SILe
-e.
f
\\'
The custodial agency will prepare an LTSP for en the existing licensee's reclamation plan, including the evaluati using input from survelliance needs.
on of long-term the existing licensee to the custodial agency.Thus, imp will not be required to prepare the LTSP.
The existing licensee, however, the long-term surveillance charge paid by the existing licens reflect site-specific additional iteos, but will not affect the ch ee(theLTSPmay existing licensee),
e i
i l
VI.
Future Uses of the Disposal Site W RCA. rer N u for potential future uses of the disposal site.
)c Title For a L
it provides that the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of both the Secretary of Energy and the NRC, ma 4
subsurface mineral rights.
If this occurs, the NRC will issue a specific license to the Secretary of the Interior to assure that the tailing disturbed, or if disturbed are restored to a safe and environme e not condition. [fJ&[O ound
- K g
For a Title the same provisions as above apply with the following two differences.
First, surface as well as-subsurface estates may be availab for use.
Second, although the request to use these rights may be recei any person, if permission is granted, the person who transferred the the Federal or State Government shall receive the right of first refu respect to this use of the land.
with Environmental impacts would be evaluated prior to any action use of surface or subsurface estates.
5;;
i...u 'r n1 o
. w-v.
~
Te vance Notice f Propo d Rul ing identifi several areas of BU)lencertaint nd requested osment on the f lowing top 1
s
{
f 1.
DOE' ility to c late the I
ogram cons ring the
[
C l
17 m
r rw-ee
-u u-
- - - ^ -
l O
t 1990 legal limit.
EPA's proposed amen nts of 40 CFR Part 192 concern ng ground water protecti for Title I sites, 3.
Institutional matters as ciated with reclaimed sites on p
dian land.
The NRC d not receive any comme ts specifically addressing these topics.
However, the une rtainty associated wit the first' issue was resolved wi h the passage of the Ur ium Mill Tailings Reme al Action Amendments Act of 19 See the earlier dis sion on this law for e details.
Ih I
h VIII. Comments on the d i n Ro m. QProposed Rulesaking b
TheCommissionreceivedsix(6)letterscommentingontheadvancenotice.
Copiks of those letters and an analysis of the comments are available for publi inspection and copying for a ee at the NRC Public Document Room at g
'OVI 2120 L
- t. NW, Washington, DC. Come ts were received f an environmental group,_
industry representative, the epartment of Energy and from three States.
rom the six letters 15 individ al coments have be analyzed. The most signi icant are summarized below.
There se d to be some misunderstand 1n by one commenter th t the long-term care iconsee might, in essence, req ire the existing 11 nsee to
-prepare the LTSP during site closure activities, thereby impacting e private sector. NRC y with the connentor that consu ation between the xisting licensee andtthe 1 -
term care licensee is appropr ate during site c sure-activities.' 95 mover 'the Commission does not intend or the existing censee to prepare the LTSP.
stead, the LTSP should be prepa ed by the custodi 1 agency which becomes th long-term care licensee once N C accepts the LTS, the
-specific license is terni ated, and site custody has bee transferred. Th custodial agene,y should p are the LTSP based on input f the existing licensee's raciaastion plan r the site, including the eva ation of long-term-surveillance needs. This appr ch provides a mechanism to in rate the reclamation program with long-te surveillance and transfers important site 18
p information to the cost tal agency. NRC encourages consultation between the d
existing licensee and the custodial agency about post-closure surveillance.
Accordingly. NRC has chan d the phrase "no impact" to no significant impact" ecause such consultation s appropriate and desirable a d requires some level f effort on the part of th existing licensee. NRC does not consider this e fort to be significant, h ever, because it is a part of other licensee a ivities required to recla the site and terminate the existing license in ac rdance with existing NRC quirements in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
One consaenter noted that t term " remedial action plan" y not be appro riate for Title 11 sites s ce 10 CFR Part 40 refers to
" closure plan."
We agr e and have made appropriate changes. Remedial action p1 ns refer to Title I sites only.
Two cementers wanted to know ab t potential uses of a disp al site after reci
. tion or closure is comple d.
The NRC is not aware o any disposal si es where a future use is s ifically planned. One of he cassenters 1 sted several potential uses, such as agricultural, rect ational, or deep subsu face mining. Because of th site specific nature of su h uses and their pote tial impacts any proposed us will be reviewed on a cas -by-case basis.
The Departae t of Energy expressed concer that the proposed rule w uld require an LTSP at ites where contaminated mat rial has been removed and if applicable, ground ter chanup achieved. We_a eethatanLTSP(ora license)forthesesi s is not appropriate and n. er intended for this to e the case. We,b, ave -
clarifying language. It s ould be noted, however, that the NRL-in case concur with completion f remedial action un1 s
the DOE had' ~
' fed ~with the EPA cleanup standards a the processing site,
'evenifthetailingswere isposed elsewhere.
IX.
etition for Rulemaking On December 5,1980, the NR received a petition for ru emaking submitted by the Sierra Club (PRM-40-23). A amendment to this petitio was received by
,the NRC nn March 21, 1983. The orig nal petition requested tha the NRC amend 1
19 i
s I
n
9.
t
-[
tts regulations to li nse the possession of byproduct material at inactive tailingssites(Title The petitioner proposed that the NRC take the ollowing regulatory act on to ensure that public health nd safety and the
- vironment is adequately rotected from the hazards asso ated with byproduct terial:-
0 1.
Repeal the licensin exemption for inactive mill t 111ngs sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedia prt> gram.
Require a license for he possession of byproduct mat rial on any other property in t vicinity of an inactive mil tailings site if the byproduct materia are derived from the inacti mill tailings site.
3.
Or alternatively, conduct a lemaking to determine wheth r a icensingexemptionofthese tes or the byproduct materi i derived f om the sites constitutes an u reasonable risk to public h alth and sa ety.
In the 1 3 amendment, the petitioner uested that, in the event that NRC denied the etitioner's earlier request t at NRC repeal the licensin exemption for i ctive sites or conduct the re vested rulemaking, the NRC take further action.
pecifically, the petitioner r vested that the NRC ensu that the managemen of byproduct material locate on or derived from inact ye uranium processing ites is conducted in a manner hat protects the public health and safety an the environment from the radi logical and nonradiolog al hazards associated wi uranium mill tailings.
f:
m Whether % origi
-petition is granted or not, t petitioner also requested that the NRC es ablish requirements to govern t e management of byproduct material, not su ect to licensing under section 1 of the Atomic EnergyAct(42U.S.C.2111),comparabletotherequirements plicable to similar materials under the S lid Waste Disposal Act, as amen d(42U.S.C.
6901etseq.). In the alternat ve, the petitioner suggested the NRC extend the coverage of the requirements 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, wh
,h are now le only to licensed byproduct material, to byproduct material not 20 4'
[I -
(e l-
l subject to licensing. In addition, the petitioner requested that NRC issue egulations that would require a pe son exempt from licensing to conduct nitoring activities, perform remed al work, or take any other action 0[
n essary to protect health and safe
> and the environment.
One of the purposes of this prop sed rulemaking is to provide a licensing proc dure for long-tersi care of inacti e sites. Although this is not what the I
petit oner requested, the end result d ectly addresses the petitioner's concer s.
Inactive sites will be licen d and will be managed to ensure their long-te e integrity to protect public he Ith and the environment.
Anot er concern of the petitioner is hat until DOE completes remedial action', t residual radicactive material ill be unregulated. While it is true that e sites are not regulated by N prior to completion of remedial action, the ites are managed by DOE under comprehensive environmental, health, and s fety program similar to the ty es of programs required by NRC under 10 CFR P rt 20. This program includes he types of activities-requested by petitioner, neluding moititoring and other ctions necessary to protect public health an safety and the environment, n addition, the remedial action L
program operates nder a series of State laws a regulatory programs intended l-to protect human h alth and the environment. Al ough the Commission does not' have the authority approve DOE's environmental health, and safety program for these sites, NRC as reviewed and cossented on the adequacy of the prograst and DOE has considered these coseents in the design nd implementation of its program.
l t
- The Countasion intend to respond more fully to th petitioner's request by the time h niemaking d scribed in today's notice is final, g
~
X.
EPA Clean Air Act Activities EPA has published new air effluent regulations fo-radon and other radioactive affluents from uranium mill utlings as part of the voluntary romand of standards developed under Sectior, ni of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (54 FR,51654, December 15,1989). TheEPAregalati:r.,it.c{pde,aredonemission y standard that would apply to both Title I arid Title ITTites after closure that 21
em sust be confirmed by measurement.
Other NRC and EPA regulations are design standards. Once measurements confirm that the site meets CAA standards and long-tsra 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 modifications to sites that already meet current design standards. The potential for conflicting 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.
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.
XI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: ' Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part $1, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting 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 uranium or thorium mill ytailinghkesbyanotherFederalagencyorState. The licensing action will bedgngefter remedial action or site closure is completed, and would ensure
\\/
thaktitesresaleingood' condition.
If unexpected repairs are ever required,
~
the long-te Itcinsee will be responsible to make the necessary repairs.
The Commiss R eealeate at the time such action is deemed necessary whether there' s a need to prepare a separate environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies 22 1
of the enviromental assessment and finding of no significaat impact are available from Mark Naisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Mail Stop NLS-260.
Telephone (301)492-3877.
i XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0020.
XIII. Regulatory Analysis The Comission has prepared a draf t 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 in the' NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Stre.et NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the draft analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Nat.1 Stop NLS-260.
The Commission requests public comment on the draf t regulatory analysis.
Comments on the.draf t analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement
.w-;
3ps e
As requftG by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a signifi-cant' economic impact upon a substantia 1' number of saml1 entities. This rule will apply. only to a Federal agency or an appropriate State. Although small-entities may be requested to consult with government agencies in developing LTSPs effort associated with such consultation is required under the criteria in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, which were previously promulgated by the Cosmission.. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared.
23
4 XV. Backfit Analysis e
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisionswhichwouldimposebackfitsasdefinedin10CFR50.109(a)(1).
XVI. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40 Governennt contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, and Uranium.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization i
Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, the NRC is propcsing the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 40.
PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F SOURCE NATERIAL 1.
The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows:
.i AUTHORITY: Sacs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat.
l 932, 933,-935, 948, 953, 954, 955, asamended, secs.11e(2),83,84, Pub.
L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
.U.55C., 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, ame 2201,,
2343, 2236, 2282);. secs. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C.
secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 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 l
(42U.S.C.5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat.
939(42U.S.C.2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat.
24 1
954,asamended(42U.S.C.2234).: Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187,68 Stat.955(42U.S.C.2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273)?1640.3,40.25(d)(1)-(3),40.35(a)-(d),40.41(b)and(c),40.46, 40.'11b j and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended,(42U.S.C.2201(b));and1640.5,40.9,40.25(c)and(d)(3)and (4),40.26(c)(2),40.35(e),40.42,40.61,40.62,40.64,and40.65are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.
Section 40.1 is revised to read as follows:
540.1 Purpose.
M (a) The regulations in this part estab cedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive t e to, receive, possess, use, transfer, or deliver source and bypro t materials, as defined in this af l id,<T part, and establish and provide for he terms and conditions upon which yf hrw/
theg$1sposalesNN tana caFeosmission will issue these 1 censes for f byprod residual radioactive
=
Theregula$1onsinthispart'alsoestablishcertain material.
requirements 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.)
(b) The regulations contained in this part are issued under the AtomicEnergyActof1964,asamended(68 Stat.919),TitleIIofthe Energy Resirganizatica Act of 1974, as amended (88 Stat.1242), and Titles I and Illsf the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7901).
3.
In 140.2a, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
540.2a Coverage of inactive tailings tites.
25
_s n
r F'
(a) Prior to the completion of the remedial action, the Consission will not require a license pursuant to 10 CFR Chapter I for possession of 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 progran g i g 1 of the Uranium Mill
[ Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 The Cosmission will exert its j3 regulatory role in remedial actions primarily through concurrence and censultation in the execution of the remedial action pursuant to Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended.
After remedial actions are completed, the Commission will license the-long-term care of sites, where residual radioactive materials are disposed, ur. der the requirements set out in 640.27.
4.
Section 40.3 is revised to read as follows:
I 140.3 License requirements.
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 material as defined in this part or any source material after receval from its place of deposit in nature, unless authorized in a specific or general license issued by the Commission under the regulations in this part.
5.
In640.4,. paragraph (t)isaddedtoreadasfollows:
NL I40.4 htisme.
(t) " Residual radioactive material" means: (1) Waste (whichthe Secretary of Energy determines to be radioactive) in the form of tailings resulting from the processing of ores for the extraction of uranium and other valuable constituents of the cress and (2) other waste (which the 26 j
1
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.Iow-grade materials. This term is used only with respect j
to materials-at sites subject to remediation under Title I of the Uranium I
Mill Tailings' Radiation Control Act of 1978j #f dev/e4 6.
In.140.7, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
140.7 Employee protection.
(f) The general licenses provided in ll40.21, 40.22, 40.25, 40.27,.
and40.28areexemptfromparagraph(e)ofthissection.
A(cmey f,( tm/v./
7.
Section 40.20 is revised to read as follows:
fafsnh0e'Wf!'!l L
I40.20 Types of licenses.
( g p y/ /gusf L atty)
(a) Licensesforsourcemateria14byproductmateriai:-deWx1 rdn:t% r:trujare of two types: general and specific.+'The general licenses provided in this part are effective without the filing of applications with the Cosmission or the issuance of licensing documents to particular persons. Specific licenses are issued to named persons upon applications flied pursuant to the regulations in this part.
(b). Secties 40.27 contains a general license applicable for custc,dy
- and 1
, ' coaMcPresidual radioactive material at uranium mill j
taili i sites remedicted under Title l'of the Urenium Mill Ta111
" tation Control Act of 1978.
(c) Section 40.28 contains a general license applicable for custody and long-term care of byproduct material at uranium or thorium mill tailings disposal sites under Title II-of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
27 r--w-3
. I
8.
New 6640.27 and 40.28 are added to read as follows:
640.27 General license for long-term care of DOE remedial action sites.
(a) A general license is issued for the long-tem care, including monitoring, maintenance, and esergency measures necessary to protect public health and safety and other actions necessAry to comply with the standards promulgated under section 275(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of X
1954, for ?- */f/I.. 7,t:: zil' t;;::;f sites' under Title I of the Uranium Hil's 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 p ofthisgenerallicenseistoensurethaturaniummilltailinghe,urpose s will 1
y be cared for in such a manner as to protect the public health, safety, and
{
the environment after remedial action has been completed.
f}ttr M 48 M (b) Thegenerallicenseinparagraph(a)'ofthissectionbecomes M
effective when the Cosmiission accepts a site Long-Ta're Surveillance Plan (fM" (LTSP) that meets the requirements of this section, and when the Commission concurs with the Department; of Energy's determination of
)
L T
- "*i'" 'di'
- i'" ** M + The LTSP [may incorporate by I
V reference information contained in documents previously submitted to the Commission if the references to the-individual incorporated documents are clear and specific. Each LTSP must include--
g (1) A legal description of t to be licensed, including docu-sentaties on whether land and interests are owned by the United States or an Ind '
.:rIf the site is on Indian land, then, as specified in the Ursat Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, the Indian tribe and av persen holding any interest in the land shall execute a waiver i
[
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; e
28 l
o
~. -,-
( U$
A *1/'
{ polr<f h ocfivdNa~orMfC<My flWl'
- 9'/"
)
s te tJ }*
i (2) A detai scription, which can be in the fom of a reference, f of the fine h te)ed editions, including existing ground weiv-characterizatic. This description must be detailed enough so that future inspectors will have a baseline to determine changes to the site snd when these changes are serious enough to require maintenance or repairs. If
)(
thhTNhascontinuingaquiferrestorationr rements, then the g
licensingprocesswillbecompletedintwo/__f. The first phest sag includes all items other than ground water restoration. Ground water y
monitoring may still be required in this first to assess performance g sne failings disposal unit D When the Commission concurs with the-k completion of ground water restoration, the licensee shall assess the need
{
to modify the LTSP and report results to the Commission.
If the proposed modifications meet the requirements of this section, the LTSP will be considered suitable to acconnodate the second M (ts.sp'edfrW od Pw p,r L (4/ce=1 4
,W (3) A description of the long-term surveillance prograst, including '
,rd/4
@g proposed inspection frequency and-reporting to the Coemissionffrequev.y
/ bet) and extent of ground water monitoring if required, appropriate constituent i
, concentration limits for ground water, inspection personnel lp qualifications, inspection procedures, recordkeeping and quality assurance 4'
procedures; 4
(4) The criteria for follow-up inspections in response to observations from routine inspections or extreme natural events; and 4
- Yea,'
(5) The criteria for instituting maintenance or emergency measures.
.r
(
leigt.orscareagencyunderthegenerallicenseestablished by pa (a)it this section shall --
Fv 1 2
(1) Implement the LTSP as described in paragraph (b) of this section; (2) Care for the site in accordance with the provisions of the LTSP; E
0 (3) Notify the Commission of any changes to the LTSP; any such changer seest not conflict with the requirements of this section; (4) Guarantee pemanent right-of-entry to Commission representatives for the purpose of periodic site inspections; and (5) Notify the Consission prior to undertaking any significant 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 Commission, may sell or lease any subsurface mineral rights associated with land on uhich residual radioactive materials are disposed. In such cases, the Commission shall grant a license permitting use of the-land if it finds that such use will not l
disturb the residual radioactive materials or that such materials will bd restored to a safe and environmentally sound condition if they are disturbed by such use.
(e) Thegenerallicenseinparagraph(a)ofthissectionisexempt 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.
n.
M. 'kY.$
,e..J :._,
540.,
ifcense for long-ters care of uranius or thorium et' materials sites.
(a) A general license is issued for the long-term care, including monitoring, saintenance, and emergency measures necessary to protect the public health and safety and other actions necessary to comply with the 9
30 i
5
4x, a
,- e
_a 0-w d
s.an
=
.1-Ae_
om
'2~'
A h
e
. e
- 4
+.*.e,+e 4
- ..-2 ee.
- 6
. er
}
+w 4 vememahan emm.
4 0
f6
//
St
'f}
' c6/ s Acua ac c. YAM. A TJP' af.Am N cu:M art p
..e g.
.,M.. 3..
f
~
y
.... e y
l
[
eemse w.
e e
===e=**-
-i.....
e.,
e.
S out**e et M e &
4 e
-en4.-
egueguuD h epp g m e e em ew p eis, cume esus.k.
e gh e e.
g@
W.P 4 4-em udg.but 9 Whe m a e
- W.4 _ s - =
m emee eep eem = -
a m-ee y y
4 AWem M typw=4se t -
iW M
. %,,aw.
emes e=,e.. um
. +=....
.e.
me..
em.e=-e====
- -...- - -==
e.
e.wi
_e
=e e m -e -
4
- U te 8 ' b$
.t-
'O',
'i*
v y-p me 4p_ _ _
.g\\.
8 e
s
=e.,
e..
ee.-
weemee-ee, -
- .=.*.e==w==-
t *eh see..e,. e.,
. esumee-e -
. - _ _ _ _ eemosa. _
eeue.
e
+,
-**e-w.
. =.
N W
996 sm e
- 9 g
WM.
99 4
=..e==ne==eo 9
9
,.,,ee men..e e***
- en e-w.
w-.
ee*****++
w enm t ete asse ve mee topaw 4..
e we ep eta r e ge ep
- er * * * * *
, w a ano m w ew e p 4peetg*.
+
m
..*g 5/
i standards in this part for uranium or thorium mill tailings sites closed under TitTi II of the Uranius Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended. The licensee will be the Department of Energy, another f
y Federal agency designated by the President, or a State where thhi$ is located. The purpose of this general license is to ensure that uranium
{
andthoriummilltailingh[1Nswillbecaredforinsuchamannerasto protect the public health, safety, and the environment ai'ter closure.
/J #8 (b) Thegenerallicenseinparagraph(a)ofthissectionbecomes JA effective when the Corsnission terminates, or concurs in an Agreement b
/k State's termination of, the current specific license and a site Long-Term g //D Surveillance Plan (LTSP) meeting the requirements of this section has been
/
- accepted by the Commission.* If the LTSP has not been formally received by the ARC prior to termination of the current specific license, the Cosmission may issue a specific order to the intended custodial agency tg fg[ensurecontinuedcon'trolandsurveillanceofthht'stoprotectthe publichealth, safety,andtheenvironasnt.3TheLTSPmayincorporateby reference infot1 nation contained in documents previously submitted to the Commission if the references to the individual incorporated documents are clear and specific. Each LTSP must include--
(1) _A legal description of i.e to be transferred and licensed; (2) A etaijed description, which can be in the form of a reference, y
of the fina, te conditions, including existing ground water characterization. This description must be detailed enough so that future i
baseline to determine changes to the site and when s enough to require maintenance or repairs; b of the long-ters 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),frequencyandextentofgroundwatermonitoringifrequired, e
31
A Q
e
.f appropriate constituent concentration limits for ground water, inspection perseaseldealifications,inspectionprocedures,recordkeepingandquality assurance proceduress (4) The criteria for follow-up inspections in response to observations from routine inspections or extreme natural events; and' (5)' The criteria for instituting maintenance or emergency measures, (c) The long-ters care agency who has a general license established by paragraph (a) of this section shall --
(1) ImplementtheLTSPasdescribedinparagraph(b)ofthis section; (2) Care for tfie site in accordance with the provisions of the LTSI s t
(3) Notify the Commission of a v changes to the LTSP; av such changes must not conflict with the requirements of this sections (4) Guarantee permanent right-of-entry to Cossiission representatives for the purpose of periodic site inspections; and (5) Notify the Coassission prior to undertaking any significant construction, actions, or repairs related to the site, even if the action is required by another State or Faderal ageng.
ion, the Commission a n issue a specific license, as.
.. tum Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, dfsurfaceand/orsubsurfaceestatestransferredtothe United States or a State. Although an application my be received from any persca, 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 aust demonstrate that--
e 32
.. -. - =
r 7
- c. :
o s,
l (1) The proposed action does not endanger the public health, safety, selfare,gthe emironment;
--i (2) Uhether the proposed action is of a temporary or pemanent nature, the site would be maintained and/or restored to meet requirements in Appendix A of this Part for closed sites; and (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 condition.
(e) Thegenerallicenseinparagraph(a)ofthissectionisexempt 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 Cosmission which j
requirements from these Parts apply for such actions and comply with t%
appropriate requirements.
(f) In cases where the Commission detemines 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, safety or welfare or to minimize or eliminate danger to life or property (AtomicEnergyAct,983(b)(2)and(4)),theCommissionwillexecuteits licensing responsibilities on a case-by-case basis.
9.
i..pgl p i w 12 is revised to read as follows:
.e.
n a
(j40-CriteriaRelatingtotheOperationofUranium
..s... <
M1~* !
.' An. 961oa of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction e,.
or Concentration of' Source Naterial From Ores Processed Primarily for-Their Source Material Content.
33 1
r p=.-
.l 1
/,
Criterion 12--The fi
,qraiY g
sites shoeld be such t disposition of tailings dtes at afiling j
ongoing' active maintenance is not necessary to p
preserve isolation, s a minimum, annual site _ inspections must be conducted by the g a
ernment agency retaining ultimate custody of the M*
.J.;n t:f" ::, t : ter, ;n etv,Q confimyt;g iv C stabilized tailings or waste systems and to detemine the nee f
for maintenance and/or monitoring.
Results of the inspections for all the sites under the licensee's jurisdiction will be reported to the Co 1
annually within 90 days of the last site-inspected in that calenda Any site where unusual datage or disruption is discovered during inspection, however, will require a preliminary site inspection be submitted within 60 days.
i On the basis of a site specific evaluation u
the Commission may require more frequent site inspections if L
to the features of a particular tailings or waste disposal system ue this case, a preliminary inspection report is required to be submitted In within 60 days following each inspection.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this _ day of __
1990.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1..
.Oi-O
- atj, Samuel J. Chilk,
- 4)Sg Secretary of the Comission.
a
,.,u.
f e
34
'*me e
- - " - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ^ -'