ML20054E865
| ML20054E865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1982 |
| From: | Hamill K NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 8206140365 | |
| Download: ML20054E865 (10) | |
Text
_.~._
DISTRIBUTION:
JMyneft u nn s ' -
MAY 2 81982 fr,w/f
{Ap)_ f R
NMSS r/f
$h 409.32/KJH/82/05/28/0 KHamill DEMartin g.gg BFisher WMUR:KJH JLinehan N
g 409.32 HPettengill gpe,j REBrowning MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ross A. Scarano, Chief JBMartin Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch tpg6 4 Division of Waste Management g%C;dA u,
FROM:
Kathleen Hamill, Project Manager f
New Facilities Section N
'l a
% +f y@k
_g Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
[ g9 Division of Waste Management t
TRIP REPORT MEETING WITH NEW MEXICO I1 N
A
'd
SUBJECT:
(\\ V Q<
2 REGION IV G
s-x Place and Date
/v b
g Santa Fe, New Mexico --Environmental Improvement Division Headquarters February 17, 1982, ArlinJ on, Texas - Region IV Offices, February 18, t
1982.
Purpose NRC staff's preliminary review identified a number of areas in New Mexico's draft application for an amended agreement which require clarification in order for the staff to complete an assessment of the State's proposal. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss these issues in detail in order to receive clarification or ensure that the State officials understood what clarification was being sought.
Participants Al Topp (NMEID)
R. Scarano (NRC-WMUR)
Gerry Stewart (NMEID)
R. Fonner (NRC-ELD)
Sam Simpson(NMEID)
K. Hamill (NRC-WMUR)
TomChristiansen(NMEID)
D.Nussbaumer(NRC-SP)
Bruce Garber (NMEID)
J. Kendig (NRC.SP)
Cubia Clayton (NMEID)
R. Doda (NRC -R-IV)
J. Collins (NRC-R-IV)
Summary As indicated, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and receive clarification on a series of issues associated with the State of New Mexico's preliminary draft application for an amended agreement. The issues which were previously transmitted to the state and are noted in the attachment were handled one at a time with the State distributing draft DIST:
TICKET N0:
8206140365 820528 PDR WASTE 0FC
- WM 5
......:_________.__;-_-____P_D_R______._______*_________..*..____....*____._____*.__________
NAME :
DATE :82/02/22
409.32/KJH/82/05/28/0 MAY 2 81982
_2_
responses to each of the NRC questions.
NRC staff gave some preliminary reactions to the State responses, including an indication of the need for considerable elaboration in some areas.
On a few of the more sensitive issues (specifically questions # 1, 3, and 6) the State intends to submit proposed language within about 10 days and NRC agreed to provide comments on this language within two weeks of the time of submittal. On all other issues, NRC either found the State's preliminary responsa acceptable or reached agreement with the State as to how New Mexico will address the issue in its narrative description of their regulatory program.
New Mexico's current schedule calls for them to submit a final draft application package to the NRC by the end of March.
It is highly speculative when any formal request from the Governor would be transmitted tc the Commission since the State recognizes that, prior to any such subittal, their regulations must be amended to make provision for certain UMTRCA requirements as well as make corrections concerning enforcement of EPA's 40 CFR 190 standard.
The State expressed serious concern over the ultimate fate of any amended agreement which was approved without the use of the 10 CFR 40 Appendix A criteria as a yardstick in the event that the regulations become enforceable again on October 1, 1982.
NRC agreed to clarify, in writing, its position that the amended agree.1ent would continue unless the Commission found at some time that the State's program was inadequate to protect the public health and safety (following a 274i hearing.)
Following the meeting with New Mexbo officials, R. Scarano and K. Hamill met with John Collins and Bob Doda from Region IV at the regional offices in Arlington, Texas. The purpose of the meeting was to brief regional personnel on the upcoming meetings with the industry scheduled for early March. After Scarano presented background information concerning the development of and litigation over the mill tailings regulations and discussed the goals and objectives of the upcoming meeting, it was decided that Bob Doda would attend the scheduled session in Denver to represent Region IV.
r ~..:- ed by :
K. Ha;::n1 Kathleen Hamiil, Project Manager New Facilities Section Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Management DIST:
TICKET N0:
0FC : WMUR f
- WMUR,
_____:______p_____:,_.g.
y___:____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
NAME : KHamill
- ~DEMartin DATE :82/C5'2E
- 67fg/82 w
ELABORATION OF ITE!!S IN NRC DECEMBER 30,1981 LETTER 1.
Please provide detailed clarification as to how the requirement in 5 12.3008. of the regulations, that sites be stabilized in such a manner that transport of radionuclides does not exceed the applicable standards in Part 4, will be implemented and enforced.
7Tu. Olt.tt.
u< U.
f& hm n ctA m.<f /o cLuy,
~
% wO't
. vahsi r( W h<^^wd Ne^
- J GM htus.u 4 ccu.ld 62etyt b - y &ct.w & n af 2.
WAs presented in the regulations, planning for minimal continued maintenance appears to be inconsistent with the concept of elimination of maintenance, to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the statute, Section 161X of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended.
It is not clear to the NRC reviewing staff what is contemplated by the State as " minimal continued maintenance." Please elaborate on the licensing and custodial goals in greater detail.
7L. d6t.8_.
a.
Ass - cuv&
l.w1.untc. /nu-Lal-<. sw i-.
y (zs w d.cz+ a ans f a - W nd l s Aip' L a. und.tef. 7fG k..A.c!hcBd.a Au G li
+
t 3.
The NRC needs a technical description of the analysis that New Mer.ico will use to determine the quality of containment that will last 200 years and provide for full erosion control so that tailings are not exposed or dispersed by natural forces, to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
UMTRCA requires stabilization and reclamation practice such that the need for long-term maintenance and monitoring after termination of license will be minimized and to the maximum extent practicable eliminated.
(See % 161X(2)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act). Rationale should be provided for the determination that measures which provide 200 year control satisfy the " maximum extent practicable" requirement in all cases.
R d{x/E iutil
%+LA Ju-cut) 2-kg L
G~
abad ic <Ly
_2-4.
In implementing the objective of reducing tailings dusting and eliminating the blowing of tailings to unrestricted areas, what consideration will be given to measures such as phased reclamation?
%} -fNN Yk Olt & <t dny A.ip<.c.
5.
Please clarify what specific design and reclamation objectives will be used in agency enforcement of the UMTRCA requirement to avoid the need for long-tenn maintenance.
(i.e., what consideration will be given to factors such as below grade disposal, reduction of embankment slopesteepness,etc.)
dht.fE a g. % (
b' W Aul.ft.
6.
We note in the regulations that flood protection is expressed specifically in terms of a 100 year flood.
Please explain how this satisfies the UMTRCA requirement to eliminate the need for long-term maintenance to the maximum extent practicable. M<lt +<. M hd N A fhacl Q Mud
/C o p -
i c,G f A-utt-vm h - M 601f1% IEW.
t is noted that alyl radiological sources in tailings are exenipt 7.
from provisions of 3-30'J1 (40 CFR 190) requirement. 40 CFR 190 includes radiological sources in tailings except for radon and its daughter (see 40 FR 23420 and 42 FR 2858, in particular column 1 on page 2859).
Thus, the flex Mexico regulation seems to be inconsistent with 40 CFR 190.
MdC 2ul M d h/M h
et, d
MLA.tibt fkO- (A-<cAc(. fLLL%4t.)691.LLh63L
% m&
&wt i A %l L1L,t.acA.ycl E/b t'v c)e hecc) fo 6/8.,
3.
With regard to decontamination of th'e site for unrestricted use, it does not appear that the regulations regarding decontamination address cleanup of tailings from areas of the mill site. Tailings may have been transported from the tailings impoundment to other areas of the mill site.
Explain what procedures would be used in implementing the decontamination requirements. dbtA m-'uv>cdc[<_th d '
1/ie. p W %,14 u( c d L( h 'tti<t'c.cle w UN Md a
"f
9.
The regulations mention " seismic risk within acceptable limits."
Please define or provide guidance as to the meaning of " acceptable limits" for this purpose. M TM QM
- axfi, ML % A320 rM.
v
- 10. The regulations appear to only require reporting of impoundment failures and events which are certain to lead to failures.
In order to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety, requirements should include reporting conditions which could have the potential for impoundment failure so that the Agency can follow-up to determine i. hat appropriate action is taken.
Please provide the rationale for not requiring notification regarding conditions which could have po'tential for impoundment failure.
dd Yk"A dbutt.M dc< d d +kk m e
(%
mu tan naujzt 11.
In the event of an early shutdown of a mill, funds collected for long-term custodial activities could be insufficient.
How will state funds, in the event of such shutdown, be guaranteed to be sufficient for transfer to the U.S. Government? The U.S. Government t{x s
has an interest in this aspect because of section 2740. tranfer g
requirement that costs of long-term maintenance and monitoring be adequately covered for each license and each site. k AW C< LLC cm fLt
- vW4 w/w in_
k alt Shttt wiu wm f~.
tnt coItse idYorNiNzation kh g
w 12.
It s at
[
cover, "unstablized" tailings, rather than " stabilized" tailings s
stated in the regulations.
It is assumed this was a typo.
Please clarify.
U wwa ft-so <v/ U L cac21
,d_t
~
6+tAwM
4 w
13.
Please explain the basis for the statement that the licensee's current assets should exceed the current liabilities by at least 2-1/2 times the amount of financial assurance.
It may be necessary to spell out in greater detail the definitions and accounting 7
protocols needed to insure uniform financial reporting among licensees.
For example, how will closure obligations be entered :n the books of the company?
14.
Regarding the State collection of sureties, the State should be able to collect the surety, then litigate. As written it is inconsistent with 315A.
Please provide legal interpretation of any restrictions puemn a wkahd Md f & g/ d A on State collection of sureties. # Ndt-swto vect Mlecithe A+t(b gjf((_. sg The regulations as writt'en %a.u av;umgu Napcva.c sutuo rpLa h e
state'tha process'ing operat ons shall 15.
be conducted so that all airborne effluent releases be reduced to at least Part 4 standards.
Consequently, clarification of your r)
('^posiiton4n ALARA showing that it is compatible with 10 CFR 20 is
/
needed.
b[dt Qu g_
x L g ~ w l<g. A a a
pec.
16.
Clarification is needed as to how the Water Quality Control Commission regulations apply to existing facilities.
dbt/~E Art /l f2A g
delib La L dan a Au J w untL n
Qf) lac [f&k. "nwun.x.yM p%h-alk erwy N New !1exico regulation the Director of EID In several p 17.
1 rather than the Commission is referred to as the approving authority for decisions reserved by statute to the NRC regarding land title and land transfer or ownership.
The reservation of land ownership decision to the Commission is statutory and must be corrected as a
=
-5 matter of law.
The NRC would like assurance that the State will accept the language of the agreement amendment as currently drafted, which contains the reservation of authority.
bt cIhM
& A.LL.cA.otutt &
f$.w AJ- <AC(%. WU&
f mWw (1 v < N A L1 e ceuQ dO)
- 18. The State needs to clarify its authority f6 carry out the require-ments of UMTRCA.
Specifically:
a.
Please supply citations to State Statutes, Executive Orders, or Attorney General's opinion to demonstrate the State legal basis for regulating tailings.
Ok b.
The requirement for providing for transfer of funds to the U.S., if custody of byproduct material and site is transferred to the U.S. upon termination of Stata license, is statutory.
NRC believes it should be reflected in State authorities to ensure problem-free transfer of fur! s to the U.S. Government.
d NRC procedures will not control discretion of the State Treasurer.
WC nh L.
M&
t r
\\
MGMQ SJT.
A k>&
c.
It is noted that the narrative references the Handbook on Licensing, page 5, that states that a report will be prepared by the Uranium Licensing Staff in, satisfaction of the require-i ments of Section 204e of UMTRCA and that such reports will normally be prepared for all 3-300H applications. Why are not such reports always prepared? What situations would be considered other than normal and not require a written environmental analysis? How can such a procedure, which provides for discretionary authority, satisfy the straightforward UMTRCA f
l requirements?
p r L t.,t {z M h h> ILne-A wd dCLG k LO IA a4 90b.d/,
19.
Organizational charts provided do not show the State Engineers' Office in the organizational structure. dht(E oh..
- 20. The narrative states that other inter-division and State arrange-rrents are in existence to insure assistance. Other than a letter from the State Engineer and a license application review chart highlighting interactions within prescribed time constraints, copies of such arrangements are not evident for other participating agencies. Also an identification of these agencies support in budgetary cost centers should be shown.
It would seem appropriate for the narrative to detail the development of a scoping document delineating the area and scope of work to be performed by each agency in preparing the environmental assessment. bMRk tur.l.2
@ LND d u j%
w>&
M A N DE M ur. O I qwd,
21.
A budget document showing fuhds for use of consultants was not available in the draft Description of New Mexico's Regulatory Program for Uranium fiills.
Please provide evidence of resource availability for NRC staff review. ddt(L OR 22.
Please clarify what staff resources will be used to review applicants' l
proposals for financial assurance under the financial test option.
jfnit anar mluN b4 YbCt NMW depuds addy
- %u Qw mdhucts e
cM vL~ m
,.m-
l 23.
Your proposal indicated that quantification of staff years effort for processing new conventional mills, insitu, major research, heap
~
leach and post-licensing activities is still under development.
I This information should be contained in the narrative and it should show how it satisfies item 34 of the, " Criteria for Guidance of States..."
L bMh & fAJAks W M
i
' %M.
- 24. Th( regulations do not require documentation of inspections of uranium mills. However, the Draft Inspection Report Form and tab F. (see page 4, line 14) imply that an inspection report will be d Npm Of.
provided.
Please clarify.
Apatc<i @
Olt-25.
Information provided regarding inplant safety review does not address the following elements which should be covered:
a.
Bioassay Procedures c IC shipments.
of b.
Transportation requirements for U 038 c.
Licensee management audit and inspection procedures.
C#_
- 26. State Inspection procedures should include a check on the licensee internal review and audit procedures for the licensee's radiation safety program, see item 35.c. of, " Criteria for Guidance of States..." It should be clarified that such a procedure is followed.
II4l1.N 4} w 0 k-l
. 27. The State inspection report should reflect an exit interview with
~
the licensee and the topics discussed.
M AM q 5
A i
- 28. The narrative is silent on licensee reporting requirements for:
a.
reporting 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year, I
reports specifying the quantity of each the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous six months of operations.
OA b.
reporting data for radiological and nonradiological environ-mental monitoring programs.
ok
[See item 35.d.(2) of " Criteria for Guidance of States..."].
l l
l t
e
,