ML20127L498

Forwards Updated Media Briefing Background Papers Entitled: Uranium Mill Tailings & Cleanup of Residual Radioactivity at Non-Routine Contaminated Sites, in Response to 921207 Request

ML20127L498
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/12/1993
From:	Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9301270179
Download: ML20127L498 (12)

Text

.g

., ~

MEMORANDyM FORi James H. Sniezek y y g g3 Deputy Executive Director for-Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research TROM:

Robert M. Enrner9, Director Of fice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

MEDIA BRIEFING BACKGROU!.'D PAPERS We are responding to your request of December 7, 1992, to update the two media briefing background papers entitled:

(1) " Uranium Hill Tailings"; and (2) " Cleanup of Residual Radioactivity at Non-routine Contaminated Sites."

The updated papers are enclosed.

We have also E-Mailed the updated papers to Jocelyn Mitchell of your staff.

Odginal Ek]MO7

[

Guy A.Nhtb

.gbRobertM.Bernero, Director

(; Office of Nuclear haterial Safety (j

and Safeguards

Enclosures:

Media Briefing Background Papers cc:

H. Thompson, EDO a

C(Np DISTRI.BUT10l(1 Central file NMSS r/f Plohaus Dir r/f LLWM r/f A'A i Mark: SmallnBoxesLiril Concurrence: Block? to'DefinelDistribut' ion Copy Pibference in small Box'on "0FC:" line place 'a:

C'= Cover' E = Coker & Enclosure N i No Copy LLURQ,,.[ [

l.LDg

[f LLWM

{

LlWMh

NMSS, OFC :

NAME:

J$urmeier/es JAu[ tin BBrach h

RBandaN' hAfl[tok I

ATE: / ///93 y

p/ /p 7/ 3

{g i / a/93-g-/f/93

/ /p/93 0FC :

NMSS I

1 t

?

NAMhhM/o f

DATE:

/ _/jid93 a

3 Path & file Name: s:\\llwmtype\\edie\\ media.pkg 0FFiCIAL RECORD COPY (p w g

In small Box en "DATE:" line place a: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy' H = liard Copy

oe lQ3 PDR :

YES d NO Category:

Proprietary or CF-Only ASNik YS NO Delete file af ter ' distribution -Yes-No-

_24UO 6

.25

- f3

!h no,s 4

th

' p'%$ A W

/

./

/

/. ' '

4 4

4 4

h 8

h i

A

'k

\\

\\

y

i g

3,

n

_e m..u.-

j.

BP19 (1/6/92)

VMUM MILL TAILINGS Ra_ckarouM :

A lack of orders for new nuclear power plants and the imprtation of uranium from otMr countries has resulted in most U.S. uranium mills shutting down operations or operating on a limited basis.

Many mills are, or will be, conducting reclamation of tailings piles created in the process of extracting source material (in the form of ' yellow cake")

from uranium-bearing ore.

These mill tailings wastes, both from i.. active mills (formally used in providing uranium for tt;e weapons program) and from active mills regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission or the Agreement States, pose a long-term hazard to the public health and safety. To provide for the disposal, long-term stabilization, and cnntrol of.hase uranium mill tallings in a safe and environmentally snund manner, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).

In terms of health hazard, the most hazardous constituent in uranium mill tailings is radium, wl.ich is radioactive and has a very long half-life.

RaJium, besides being hazardous itself, produces radon, a radioactive gas whose decay p oducts can cause lung cancer. This makes mill tailings hazardous for thousands of years.

UMTRCA established two programs to protect public health, safety, and the environment from uranium mill tailings. The Title I program established a joiat Federal-State funded program for remedial action at abandoned mill tailings sites, with ultimate Federal ownership under license to NRC, Under Title I, the NRC must evaluate and concur that the Department of Energy's (DOE) actions fur cleanup and remediation of these inactive tailings sites meet standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Title 11 program is directed towards the active mill tailings sites (those sites under license by NRC or Agreement States). Title 11 provides:

(1) NRC authority to control radiological and nonradiological hazards; (2) EPA authority to set-generally applicable standards for both radiological and nonradiological hazards; and (3) eventual State or Federal ownership, under license to NRC.

For Agreement States, NRC also is required to make a determination that all applicable standards and requirements have been met by uranium mills licensed by Agreement States before termination of their licenses.

Regulations ansi standards:

The NRC's final regulations conforming to EPA's requirements for iadiological and nonradiological protection and long-term stabi'lization of the impoundments for the tailings were published on October 16, 1985. NRC's final regulations addressing EPA's groundwater protection standards were peblished on November 13, 1987.

I

~. -.

2 BP19 (1/6/93)

EPA, in dcveloping its rtill tailings standards, estimated that its standards would significantly reduce radon emissions from tailings and approximately 600

- lung cancer deaths per century would be avoided.

Since the EPA standards require that the impoundments for the tailings must be designed to be stable for 1,000 years, to the extent practicable, but in no case less than 200 years, it is assumed that the actual engineered structures will degrade slowly over possibly thousands of years.

Therefore, the use of the standards and-NRL's implementirg regulations could result in the avoidance of tens of

(

thousands of :.41culated radon-related lung cancer deaths.

Currer$ StatAq:

Title ' -- Reclamation Work at Inactive Tailings Sites Twenty-four inactive mill tailings sites designated by DOE range in size from about 60 thousand to 4.6 million cubic yards of material.

Except for a site at Canonsburg, PA, the inactive sites are located in the western United States (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and.

Wyoming).

The DOE :urface remediation program is estimated tc cost approximately $1.3 billion and is expected to be completed by 1998.

The D3E groundwater cleanup phase was initiated in 1991 and is estimated to be completed by 2020 at a cost of over $500 million.

DOE has completed remedial action on approximately half of the Title I sites.

It is anticipated that in 1993 00E will become an NRC licensee for the long-term custodial care of the completed mill tailings sites located near Shiprock, New Mexico, and Spook, Wyoming, and Green River, Utah.

Title II - Licensed Mill Tailings Sites Of 27 NRC licensed uranium recovery facilitie,15 are either expected to begin, or have already started, reclamation activities to provide long-term stabilization and closure of the tailings impoundments.

These NRC-licensed sites are located in New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

There also are 8 uranium mills in Agreement States (Colorado, Texas, and Washington) that have similar non-operaticnal tailings impoundments.

In the fall of-1991,.NRC, EPA, and the affected mill tailings Agreement States-agreed that there was a~ need to eliminate the dual regulation created by NRC's authority under UMTRCA and the Atomic Energy Act and EPA's authority under-the p

Clean Air Act (CAA). This interagency consultation resulted in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide the basis-for eliminating the dual regulation by EPA under the CAA. Current activities are addressing the disposal standards in Subpart T of 40 CFR 61. The radon flux standards in Subpart T are the same as those under.UNTRCA. Consequently, the primary focus of the MOU is to ensure that aon-operational piles are closed to comply with the radon-standards as expeditioush as practicable, with a goal that such closure occur by the end of 1997. The M0V specifies that the schedules for closure be enforceable by NRC or the affected Agreement States. The MOU further provides that the dual. regulation of operational sites under Subpart W of 40 CFR Part 61 will be addressed subsequently.

4 I -

]

l 3

BP19 (1/6/93)

In the late sumer of 1992, NRC was requested by EPA, the American Mining Congress, the Natural Rescurces Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund to sign a-settlement agreement related to EPA's 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart T standards and associated stays of.the standards.

Although the NRC is not a party ir, the underlying lawsuits, the Comission recognized tnat many of the actions outlined in the settlemir,t agreement requiring NRC or Agreement State action were an integral part of the agreement. While the Commission did not l

support signing the settlement agreement, it did direct staff to prepare a-letter to the affected parties in which the Commission-would indicate it was in general accord with the substantive provisions of the draft final settlement agreement dated November 24, 1992.

Cpga_ tart:

i John J. Surmeier, Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch i

U.S. NRC, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 504-3439 i'

I h

e k

J d

r i

Y!s P

J i

4 W

T6=-'

s m-W--e-

__,am_._m

- m

4 BP19 (1/6/93)

URAN!UM MILL TAILINGS HIGHLIGHTS Uranium Mill T;ilings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) established o

a comprehensive regulatory framework for all uranium mill tailings.for long-term custody and control.

Title I of UMTP.CA established a joint Federal-State fur.ded program for o

remedial action at abandoned sites, with ultimate Federal ownership under license tc NCC.

O Title 11 of bMTRCA provided:

(1) NRC authority to control radiological and nonradiologial hatards; (2) EPA authority to set generally applicabin standards for both radiological and nonradiological hazards; and (3) eventual Stata or Federal ownership, under license to NRC.

7 o

The 24 Title i tailings piles, except for the site at Canonsburg, PA, are locattd in the western United States. The DOE surface -emediation program is estimated to cost approximately 11,3 billion and to be completed by 1993. The DOE groundwater cleanup phase was initiated in 1991 and is estimated to be completed by 2020 at a cost over 5500

million, o

There are 27 uranium recovery facilities licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Part 40 in conformance with EPA cenerally applicable standards in 40 CFR 192.

o There are 15 NRC licensed and 8 Agreement State-licensed facilities that have non-operating mill' tailings impoundments.

o An NRC-EPA Agreement State MOU of-October 1991 provides the basis for eliminating dual regulation by EPA under the Clean Air Act.and establishes a goal for closure of the f ailings impoundments at these 23 non-operating sites by the cnd of 199/.

- i l

l L

l_.

_. l

-"l.

t f

n i

ENCLOSUDE 2

n e

8 1

e 1

.f a

i m

.i i

mm_

_. _. _.m.

I

~

n REMEDIATIOF OF RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY AT NON-ROUTINE CONTAMINATED SITES i

Backcround:

There are about 40 siten contaminated with radioactive material, under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, throughout the country, that are considered to be non-routine decommissioning cases.

To compel-timely remediation of these sites, NRC initiated the Site Decommissioning Management Plan l

(SDMP) in 1990.

NRO emphasis on timely remediation of the sites-1 resulted from former Chairman Carr's August 3, 1989, testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and National Resources, chaired by Congressman Synar, and from continuing NRC concern about lack of progress at some of these sites.

f DJocussion:

The NRC staff developed the SDMP to identify sites requiring remediation and to provide the Commission with a status report on the actions taken to bring about the remediution of the SDMP sites.

In summary, the SDMP contains the following information:'

l

1) definition of the project management plan; j

2) identification of the sites requiring decommissioning;

}

3) prioritization of NRC review of the contaminated sites;

4) schedule and resources necessary to support NRC actions to regulate the recediation of the contaminated sites;

5) resolution of policy and Synar hearing issues for SDMP implementation.

The SDMP not only identifies the sites requiring decommissioning, but also describes:

1) the site;

2) the wantos and radioactivity remaining on the ulta;

3) the radiological hazard from the remaining wastes;-

i

4) the financial assurance required;-

5) the status of the remediation activities; and

6) NRC proposed actions and schedules to ensure timely decommissioning.

SDMP Criteria:

0 t

t 4,,,,

,.+,n

-y

-e ev..

,-w

... ~

s e

i 2

BPIs (12/92)

A site is listed in the SDMP if it meets one or more of-the following criteria:

1). problems with a viable responsible organizacion

( e. g.,-

inability to ray for or unwillingness to perform decommissioning);

2) presence of large amounts of soil contamination or unused settling ponds or burial grounds thtt may be difficult to dispose of;

='

i 3) long-term presence of contaminated, unused facility buildings;

4) license previously terminated; or

5) contahination or potential contamination of the groundwater from onsite wastes.

Reaulations; E

In-1988, NRC. promulgated the final decommissioning regulations,.

under 10 CFR Parts, 70,-40, 50, 70, and 72.

The regulation defines decommissjaning as temoving a facility-from cervice-and reducing the residual radioactivity to'a level that will permit release of the ftscility for unrestricted use and termination of-the license.

In summary, the new regulation prascribes i

requirements for decommissioning planning, financial assurance, recordkeeping, and license termination.

l c

SDMP Action Plani The SDMP has been effective in ensuring coordination and i

resolution of some policy ar.d regulatory issues affecting site decommissioning.

Progress on actual' site remediation, however, continues to be slow.

The limited progress-prompted the staff to-develop the SOMP Action Plan, which was approved by the Commission on April 6, 1992.

The Action Plan:

1) identifies current criteria.to guide remediation of contaminated soils, structures, and equipment and emphasizes site-specific application of the as--low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle;-

2) states NRC's position on the finality of' decommissioning decisions; li J

~ ~ -

f N

3 BP15 (12/92)

3) describes NRC's general expectation that SDMP site remediation will be completed _within a 4-year-timeframe after operations cease or 3-years after the issuance of an initial decommissioning-order;

4) identifies currently available guidance on site characterization work in support of decommissioning; and-

5) describes the process the staff will use to establish and enforce schedules for timely decommissioning en a site-specific basis.

IGO Workshop on the SDMP:

on November 19, 1992, NRC hosted a workshop in Rockville, Maryland, to exchange information and lessons learned in remediating contaminated sites.

The workshop was intended primarily for SDRP site licensees and responsible parties.

However, represcn'.utives of_ state regulatory agencies and private consulting firms also attended.

The workshop agenda included remarks by Chairman Selin, presentations by NRC on the 3DMP. SDMp Action Plan, and future regulations affecting contLminated site remediation, and presentations by-four SDMP licensee's-on their experience in 1 elected aspects of site decommissioning.

Policy Ipsues Reauirina Rgsolution:

The SDMP contains a series of policy issues, related to the recediation of contaminated materials licensee sites, that need to be resolved.

Resolution of these policy issues will. provide a regulatory framework for more consistent-and efficient licensing i

i-actions related to site decommissioning in the future..Two issues require prompt resolution for more effective implemencation of the SDMP:

1) developing a national-standard

+

for residual radiological contamination that-is acceptable for' releasing a site.or materials for unrestricted use; and 2) developing a rule to require timely decommissioning.- The Commission recently initiated an enhanced participatory rulemaking process to establish radiological-criteria for decommissioning.

Representatives of State governments, Tribal governments, local governments,:other Federal agencies, environmental groups, citizen groups, and industry groups are invited to participate in the workshop associated with the ruleraking.

The workshops will begin in January 1993-and end in May 1993.-

Final requirements are-scheduled to be promulgated in the Fall of 1994.

A proposed rulemaking on the timeliness of decommissioning is expected to be published in the federal Rgaister in early 1993.

z-N-u a

s

%.e 4+e-+=

m m

e--

yw

, rey

,, +.,

q dy--r mJ s'

-r7

l

's 4

BP15 (12/92)

Ctrrent Status:

j

-i The NRC staff is implemen+

ig the SDMP as described in SECY -

200 dated May 29, 1992.

The decommissioning of the Allied Signal Aerospace - Bendix Division site was completed, and removed from the SDMP list, on February 28, 1992.

Two other sites, Amax, Incorporated and UNC Recovery Systems (Wood-River Junction), have completed site remediation activities.

The licenses for these two sites will be terminated, and the sites removed from the SDMP i

list, after pending administrative or jurisdictional issues are resolved.

In addition, decommissioning actions at the Budd Company and Cabot Corporation, Revere, sites are expected to be completed, and the licenses terminated, in early 1993.

Attached is the current list of SDMP sites.

Contact:

John H. Austin, Chief, Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-504-2560.

i l

l r

L

5 BP15 (12/92)-

HIGHLIGHTS o

Over 40 sites contaminated with radioactive material are non-routine decommissioning cases.

o Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) developed in 1990.

o SDMP includes information on identification.of sites, prioritization of NRC review efforts, schedule, and resources to support NRC actions.

o Decomraissioning rvle promulgated in 1988 in Parts 30, 4 0, -

50, 70, and 72.

o Decommissioning defined as removing a facility-from service and reducing the residual radioactivity to a level that, will permit release of the facility for unrestricted use and termination of the license.

SDMP Action Plan approved by the Commission on April 6, o

1992.

o Policy issues that require resolution:

1) development of residual contamination criteria;

2) timeliness of decommissioning.

t m

s

-r

-r a