ML20132F715

Rev 0 to Guidance to NRC Staff on License Termination Process for Conventional U Mill Licensee

ML20132F715
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132F687	List: ML20132F682 ML20132F715
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9612260060
Download: ML20132F715 (22)

Text

.. . - . . - . - _ .. -_ - . . - - .- ... . .-

\

i l

GUIDANCE TO THE NRC STAFF ON l

i THE LICENSE TERMINATION PROCESS FOR I CONVENTIONAL URANIUM MILL LICENSEES l

i l

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Waste Management Uranium Recovery Branch December 1996 / Rev. 0 l

9612260060 961127 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR

. anu_._ _.. s _. - 4 .m.m A A_,4ma__,_.. __.12 - _ . - , m.__. _ . . _ __a e a 4 g , s,_. _ m.m._ ..a a m._A 3 4 O 1

4

Enclosure j " GUIDANCE TO THE NRC STAFF i ON THE LICENSE TERMINATION PROCESS FOR i CONVENTIONAL URANIUM MILL LICENSEES" 1

i 1

1 1

1 t

i 1' 3

4 e

i a

! j d

o i

i 4

e

~

I GUIDANCE TO THE NRC STAFF ON THE LICENSE TERMINATION PROCESS FOR CONVENTIONAL URANIUM MILL LICENSEES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Waste Management Uranium Recovery Branch December 1996 / Rev. 0

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae

1.0 BACKGROUND

............................. 1 2.0 ROLES OF INVOLVED ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 Uranium Mill Licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3 Custodial Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 THE LICENSE TERMINATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Licensee Documentation of Completed Remedial-and Decommissioning Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 j

3.1.1 Documentation of Completed Surface Remedial Actions . . . 5 3.1.2 Documentation of Completed Site Decommissioning . . . . . 7 3.1.3 Documentation of Completed Groundwater Corrective Actions 7 3.2 NRC Review of Completed Closure Actions ............ 7 3.3 Observational Periods ..................... 8 3.3.1 Following Completion of Surface Remedial Actions . . . . . 8 3.3.2 Groundwater Remediation ................. 9 3.4 Long-Term Site Surveillance Funding .............. 9 3.4.1 Bases for Determination of Surveillance Chtrge . . . . . . 9 3.4.2 Determination of Surveillance Charge Amount . . . . . . 10 3.4.3 Payment of Long-Term Surveillance Charge . . . . . . . . 11 3.5 Preparation of the Long-Term Surveillance Plan . . . . . . . . 12 3.6 Site Ready for License Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.7 Termination of the Specific License / Issuance of the General License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.7.1 NRC Determination under Section 83c/274c of the Act . . . 13 3.7.2 NRC Review and Acceptance of the LTSP . . . . . . . . . 14 3.7.2.1 Issuance of a Specific Order under 10 CFR 40.28 . 14 3.7.3 Transfer of site Control to the Custodial Agency . . . . 15 REV.O i December 1996

. . . - . - . . = - - . - _ = - - . . . . - . - - - _ . . . - . - . - - . - . ___ - .

i l

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Pace 4.0 ADDITIONAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1 UMTRCA Title II Sites on Indian Lands ............16 l

! 4.2 Concurrent Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 l

5.0 REFERENCES

............................17 i

)

1 l '4 FIGURES i 3.1 License Termination Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 i

i i

1 I

l REV.0 ii December 1996

i Mr. Ernest Y. Scott Operations Manager i 0 Union Pacific Resources l P.O. Box 130 Magna, Utah 84044 i 1

R. Ohrbon, NMED New Mexico Environment Department i P.O. Box 26110 Sante Fe, NM 87502  !

I

.j 7

4 4

.J 1

l 4

I i

1 i

1 i

i n

.f

j l ,

}'

Kennecott Uranium Company ATTN: Oscar Paulson Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Manager, Corporate Licensing '

! P.O. Box 1500 BR4G j Rawlins, WY 82301 1101 Market Street i

Chattanooga, TN 37402 Kennecott Uranium Company ATTN: B. A. Massey Rio Algon Mining Corp.

505 Gillette Avenue ATTN

Marvin Freeman, 1 Caller Box 3009 i Vice President

{ Gillette, WY 82717-3009, 6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 325 i t t Oklahoma City, OK 73118

{ 'QuiviraMini'igCodpany ' (

ATTN: Manager, Radiation Safety, Atlas Corporation I Licensing #& Reg.: Affairs ATTN: R. E. Blubaugh

! 6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 325! Vics President of Environ-

, Oklahoma City, OK 73118 mental and Governmental

! 3

< Affairs j Atlantic Richfield Company i Republic Plaza

, ATTN: Ron S. Ziegles 370 17th St., Suite 3050

t. P.O. Box 638. .

Denver, CO 80202 i Grants, NM 87020 *

\ Plateau Resources Limited l UNC Mining and Millin'g i P.O. Box 2111

ATTN: Juan R. Velasquez Ticaboo

1720LouisianaBlvd.,NE,Sbite400 Lake Powell, UT 84533-2111 Albuquerque, NM 87110 4 Bear Creek Uranium 3 Hydro Resources, Inc. ATTN

Gary Chase i ATTN: Mark Pelizza Radiation Safety Officer i Uranium Resources Inc. P.O. Box 366 2 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1020, LB 12 Casper, WY 82602 Dallas, TX 75251 l Umetco Minerals Corporation 4 Mr. Caleb Loring, III ATTN: Bert R. Hankins i Essex Street Associates General Superintendent

P.O. Box 5600 P.O. Box 151 l Beverly Farms, MA 01915-0512 Riverton, WY 82501

, i Dave Crouch, Director American Nuclear Corporation  !

Dennis A. Eckerdt, President Environmental Quality Sohio Western Mining Company P. O. Box 2713 150 East Social Hall Avenue Casper, WY 82602 Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 U.S. Energy Corporation ATTN: Kenneth Webber Homestake Mining Company 877 North 8th West P.O. Box 98 Riverton, WY 82501 Grants, NM 87020 ,

Power Resources, Inc. l Crow Butte Resources, Inc. ATTN: Steve Morzenti, ATTN: Steve Collings, President Vice President 216 Sixteenth St. Mall, Suite 810 1560 Broadway, Suite 1470 Denver, CO 80202 Denver, CO 80202 '

I

Mr. Charles Judd, Executive State of Texas Vice President ATTN: Minor Hibbs, Director Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Industrial and Hazardous 46 West Broadway, Suite 240 Waste Division Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission State of New Mexico P.O. Box 13087 ATTN: Benito Garcia, Chief Austin, TX 78711-3087 Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau State of Washington P.O. Box 26110 ATTN: Gary Robertson, Head Santa Fe, NM 87502 Waste Management Section Division of Radiation State of Nebraska Protection ATTN: Dr. Mark B. Horton, Director Department of Health Nebraska Dept. of Health P.O. Box 47827 P.O. Box 950070 Olympia, WA 98504-7827 Lincoln, NE 68509-5007 Uranium Producers of America State of South Dakota ATTN: Joseph H. Card, President ATTN: Mike Pochop, Scientist c/o Jon Indall, Carpenter, Comau, Department of Environment et. al.

and Natural Resources P.O. Box 669 Division of Environmental Regulation Santa Fe, NM 87504-0669 523 E. Capitol, Joe Foss Building Pierre, SD 57501 New Mexico Mining Association ATTN: Robert L. Rivera Energy fuels Nuclear, Inc. Executive Director Harold Roberts, President 1470 St. Francis Drive 1515 Arapahoe St., Suite 900 Santa Fe, NM 87505-4038 Denver, CO 80202 Anthony Thompson State of Utah Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ATTN: William J. Sinclair, Director 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Division of Radiation Control Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 Department of Environmental Quality 168 North 1950 West Mr. Tom Hayslett P.O. Box 144850 1101 Market St.

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 H.S. BR6A Chattanooga, TN 37402 State of Wyoming ATTN: Dennis Hemmer, Director National Mining Association Department of Environmental Quality Katie Sweeney Herschler Building,122 West 25th 1130 17th St. N.W.

Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Joe Klinger State of Colorado Illinois Department of Nuclear ATTN: Robert M. Quillin, Director Safety Radiation Control Division 1035 Outer Park Dr.

Department of Health Springfield, ILL 62704 i 4300 Cherry Creek Dr., So. l Denver, CO 80222-1530 i

Power Resources, Inc. Colorado Mining Association ATTN: Paul Hildenbrand, Manager

• ATTN: David R. Cole, President Regulatory and Environmental 1340 Colorado State Bank Building Affairs 1600 Broadway 800 Werner Court Denver, CO 80202-4913 Suite 230 Casper, Wyoming 82601 Utah Mining Association ATTN: Alexander Jordon Exxon Corporation President c/o Exxon Coal and Minerals Company 136 South Main, Suite 825 ATTN: Dave Range Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1672 Staff Environmental Engineer P.O. Box 1314 Wyoming Mining Association Houston, TX 77251-1314 ATTN: Dale Alberts, President P.O. Box 866 COGEMA Mining, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 Irigaray/Christensen Ranch ISL Operations Steve Hamp l ATTN: Donna Wichers UMTRA Project Office P.O. Box 730. U.S. Department Of Energy Mills, WY 82644 Albuquerque Operations Office P. O. Box 5400 Cogema, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5400 ATTN: Robert Poyser 7401 Wisconsin Avenue U.S. Department of Energy Bethesda, MD 20814-3416 ATTN: J. Virgona, Project Manager Grand Junction Project Office Pathfinder 2597 B 3/4 Road North Butte ISL Operations Grand Junction, CO 81501 ATTN: Donna L. Wichers P.O. Box 730 U.S. Department of Energy-Mills, WY 82644 ATTN: David Mathes EM-451 Pathfinder Mines Corp. Cloverleaf Bldg.

ATTN: Lee Nugent, General Manager 11901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 730 Germantown, MD 20874 935 Pende11 Blvd. ,

Mills, Wyoming 82644 Mr. Byron Bunger Mail Code 6602J Petrotomics Company U.S. Environmental ATTN: Ron Juday, Supervisor Protection Agency P.O. Box 8509 401 M. Street, S.W.

Shirley Basin, WY 82615 Washington, DC 20460 .

1 Western Nuclear, Inc. Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.

ATTN: Stephanie Baker White Mesa 200 Union Blvd., Suite 300 ATTN: Michelle Rehmann i Lakewood, CO 80228 1515 Arapahoe St., Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 )

Wyoming Mining Association ATTN: Marion Loomis Executive Director P.O. Box 866 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003

- . - - . . _= - . . . - . .- . . ..

i l

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (the Act) provides the statutory requirements for the transfer of the title and custody to byproduct material and any land used for the disposal of such byproduct material from a uranium

mill licensee to either Federal or State control, prior to termination of the i licensee's specific license. These requirements are codified in 10 CFR Part 40, at paragraph 6 40.28, " General license for custody and long-term care of l uranium or thorium byproduct materials disposal sites." 10 CFR 40.28, along '

with pertinent requirements laid out in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 (Appendix A), provide for the completion of certain licensing actions prior to the transfer of the land and byproduct material to the United States or the appropriate State for long-term care.

The purpose of this document is to provide to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff specific direction to be applied in the course of the license

, termination process for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) Title II sites. The license termination process, including the roles

, of the respective involved organizations, is discussed in general, and then, various relevant issues are addressed in greater detail. This is the initial version of this guidance document, and as specific uranium mill licenses are terminated and title to the land and byproduct material is transferred to the appropriate governmental agency, future revisions are likely to be necessary. 1 These revisions will address not only issues yet to be identified, but also l will provide any additional necessary clarification of issues discussed herein.

i I ,

e l

j k

}

REV.0 1 December 1996

2.0 ROLES OF INVOLVED ORGANIZATIONS 2.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission In accordance with Section 83c of the Act for NRC licensees, and Section 274c for Agreement State licensees, prior to termination of the specific license, the NRC determines whether the licensee has met all applicable standards and requirements under that license. For NRC licensees, this will involve NRC staff review of licensee submittals relative to the completion of decommissioning, reclamation, and, if necessary, groundwater cleanup. For Agreement State licensees, the State will conduct these reviews in accordance .

with its standards and regulations. Under 10 CFR 40.28, the NRC must concur j with the State on the termination of its specific licenses. NRC's i determination with respect to Section 274c of the Act will be conducted by the Office of State Programs (OSP) in consultation with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. It is anticipated that this determination will rely on OSP's reviews of the Agreement State's program and on the State's ,

documentation of its conclusions concerning the licensee's performance of remedial actions.

In addition, the NRC staff reviews the site Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) submitted by the custodial agency, for both NRC and Agreement State sites.

Upon NRC acceptance of the LTSP, the NRC terminates the specific license (or concurs in the Agreement State's termination) and places the long-term care and surveillance of the site by the custodial agency under the general license provided at 10 CFR 40.28.

A final NRC responsibility is the determination of the final amount of long-term site surveillance funding. Criterion 10 of Appendix A specifies a minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars), revised to reflect inflation, which  !

may be escalated on a site-specific basis due to surveillance and long-term monitoring controls beyond those specified in Criterion 12 of Appendix A.

Detailed discussion of the bases used in developing the minimum charge and any escalated costs is provided in Section 3.4.

2.2 Uranium Mill Licensees Prior to license termination, licensees are required by license conditions to complete site decontamination and decommissioning, and surface and groundwater ('

remedial actions consistent with NRC-approved (in the case of an NRC licensee) or Agreement State-approved (for an Agreement State licensee) decommissioning, t reclamation, and groundwater corrective action plans.

Licensees will need to document the completion of these remedial actions in accordance with procedures developed by the NRC or the Agreement State. As discussed in Section 3.1, for NRC licensees, this information will include a report documenting completion of tailings disposal cell construction and accompanying quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) records, as well as radiation surveys and other information required under 10 CFR 40.42.

Agreement State licensees will document their remedial action performance in accordance with the respective State requirements.

REV.o 2 December 1996

Because the LTSP must reflect the remediated condition of the site, the licensee will interact with the custodial agency in the preparation of the LTSP. Most likely, this will involve supplying the custodial agency with appropriate documentation (e.g., as-built drawings) of the remedial actions taken and reaching agreements (formal or informal) with the custodial agency regarding the necessary surveillance control features of the site (e.g.,

boundary markers, fencing). It is the custodial agency's responsibility to submit the LTSP to the NRC for approval. However, the licensee may elect to help prepare the LTSP, to whatever degree is agreed to between the licensee and the custodial agency.

Finally, the licensee provides the funding to cover long-term surveillance of the site, in accordance with criterion 10 of Appendix A. The final amount of this charge will be aetermined by the NRC, based on the final conditions of the site.

Following termination of the existing license and transfer of the site and byproduct materials to the custodial agency, a licensee's remaining liability extends solely to any fraudulent or negligent acts committed prior to the transfer to the custodial agency, as provided in Section 83b(6) of the Act.

2.3 Custodial Agency Section 83 of the Act provides, that prior to termination of the specific license, title to the site and byproduct materials shall be transferred to either (1) the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), (2) a Federal agency designated by the President, or (3) the State in which the site is located, at the option of the State. It is expected that DOE will be the custodial agency for most, if not all, of the sites.

It is the responsibility of the custodial agency to submit the LTSP to the WRC for review and acceptance. Provisions and activities identified in the final LTSP will form the bases of the custodial agency's long-term surveillance at the site. NRC's acceptance of the LTSP will render that site licensed under the general license in 10 CFR 40.28. Custodial agencies are required, under 10 CFR 40.28(c)(1) and (c)(2), to implement the provisions of the LTSP. These activities could include those not to be reflected in the long-term care charge, but voluntarily committed to by the custodial agency.

2.4 States As discussed in Section 2.3, the State has the option of becoming the custodial agency for a site located within its boundaries. This "right of first refusal" may be exercised either on a site-by-site basis or so as to cover all sites within the State's limits. This option should be exercised early enough in the license termination process so that termination of the specific license and transfer of the site to the appropriate custodial agency is not delayed unnecessarily. Written confirmation of a State's decision should be documented in a letter to DOE, from the Governor of the State, or another State official to whom the authority for this decision has been l

I REV.O 3 Deanber 1996

)

l

appropriately delegated. A copy of this letter should be transmitted to the NRC.

A State's authority over the regulation of the non-radiological constituents of groundwater is not impacted by its status, or lack thereof, as a custodial agency for any site within its boundaries. A State's authority, however, does not extend to the radiological constituents of groundwater (NRC,1980b).

Finally, in addition to its potential role as a custodial agency, an Agreement State conducts the reviews of reclamation and decommissioning plans and groundwater corrective action programs for its licensees. Criteria used in these reviews are those applicable from Agreement State regulations which are ,

compatible with the relevant requirements of Appendix A. Additionally, with NRC concurrence, an Agreement State terminates the specific licenses for its licensees, based on a review of a licensee's performance of remedial actions in accordance with approved plans.

REV.O 4 December 1996

. - __. _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ ~ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -

i 3.0 THE LICENSE TERMINATION PROCESS A licensee considering termination of its Source Material License should have 1

in place an acceptable (by the NRC or Agreement State, whichever is j appropriate) site decommissioning and reclamation plan, and if necessary, an acceptable groundwater corrective action program. This section describes the

termination process that follows an NRC licensee's completion of  !

decommissioning, reclamation, and groundwater corrective action in accordance 1

4 with the approved plans. Specific procedures for the NRC's concurrence in the ,

termination of Agreement State licenses are under development by OSP. l 4

3.1 Licensee Documentation of Completed Remedial and Decommissioning Actions 3.1.1 Documentation of Completed Surface Remedial Actions Although uranium mill licensees are. required to complete reclamation in accordance with an NRC- or Agreement State-approved plan, presently, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for a licensee to submit formal

, documentation that the tailings disposal cell was reclaimed in accordance with the approved plan. However, for the NRC staff to determine that all applicable standards and requirements have been met (under Section 83c of the Act), some form of documentation is necessary. I l To ensure a timely and efficient NRC review, when reclamation of the tailings disposal cell is completed, the licensee should submit to the NRC, for review, j a report detailing the conduct and completion of the reclamation construction j 2 activities. This Construction Completion Report (CCR) would consist primarily i of QA/QC records and as-built drawings. A licensee may refer to the reports prepared by DOE to document completion of remedial actions at UMTRCA Title I

. Project sites as guidance in developing its CCR. However, some of the

" information provided in DOE's reports (e.g., original design calculations) is provided to ease the NRC staff's review rather than to meet documentation requirements.

J If a CCR or similar report is not submitted, it will be necessary for the NRC staff to conduct a detailed technical review in order to meet its responsibilities under Section 83c of the Act. This review could involve several site visits and significant confirmation testing and would likely 1 involve staff in the following technical disciplines: geotechnical '

engineering, surface water and erosion protection, and soil radiation cleanup.

Accurate QA/QC records and photographs kept by a licensee during cell construction will be important input into the NRC staff's determination that reclamation has been conducted and completed in accordance with the approved 1 plan.

If the NRC determines, as part of its review of the CCR or during a site inspection, that a licensee has neglected to compile QA/QC records or has

inadequate records, the NRC may require it to conduct appropriate sampling of

, those portions of the completed cell that are in question (e.g., of the radon

barrier). If a licensee is unwilling or unable to comply, the NRC staff or NRC contractors will conduct the sampling, and the costs involved will be 1

REV.O 5 December 1996 l

.a-- -.. -

Lic;nso Termination Process -

i

Licensed Mill Operations 4

1r IP _

l, 1 Appnmed Grounemater Correctrue Aden Apprwed Redhmeben/

i Pimn in piece C- = . . 9 Plan in piece i

i 1r 1r l

06 W uoertMeC 6 swfece '

l "

j conocese esean reclameman  ;

I j i, ir unenese masses Armi powidmeter '

report or ACL W

,i No No -

l 2 r r  :

. N ANC approies ARC apprwes redemason

%\  ;

/

op  ::='.vi.re , m--- w,

?

Yes  !

• • epeceme interd to tumunsee tcanos; outoves apprennene 4

3 l documentshan i Observabonal periods  ;

8e uannese meine pernard at i ewveannes charge l

ir

[NRC tumhetse speemc beenmet NRC enempte til she LTSP conewe k Aerammerd Shes n

LTSP esmhed to NRC 1r NRC p wansweer 1ocFR C 4genrebonnes Cumandus usanor prepose see Lang-Term Sunaamnae Plan (LTSP) 1 REV.0 6 December 1996 l

4

included in the licensing and inspection fees assessed under 10 CFR 170.31.

In addition, if a regt.irement to maintain QA/QC records is part of an approved reclamation plan, a licensee's lack of such records may be interpreted as a violation of the relevant license condition. Appropriate NRC action would be taken in such instances.

3.1.2 Documentation of Completed Site Decommissioni_n_g Licensees are also required under 10 CFR 40.42(i) to document the results of site decommissioning, which is accomplished by conductir radiation survey of the premises where the licensed activities were carrt u out. The results of this survey, the contents of which are specified at 10 CFR 40.42(i)(2), are i submitted to the NRC for review. A licensee has the option of demonstrating l that the premises are suitable for release in a manner other than that specified at 9 40.42. Additional documentation pertinent to site decommissioning and soil cleanup may be required by specific license condition.

I 3.1.3 Documentation of Completed Groundwater Corrective Actions Criteria 5A-5D, along with Criterion 13, of Appendix A incorporate the basic groundwater protection standards imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts D and E (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983). These standards apply during operations and prior to the end of closure. At a licensed site, if these groundwater protection standards are exceeded, the licensee is required to put into operation a groundwater corrective action program (CAP) (Criterion 5D of Appendix A). The objective  ;

of the CAP is to return the hazardous constituent concentration levels to the 1 concentration limits set as standards.

For licensees with continuing groundwater cleanup, NRC approval is required i for the termination of corrective action. A licensee should submit appropriate groundwater monitoring data and other information that provide reasonable assurance that the groundwater has been cleaned to meet the appropriate standards. This may include an application for alternate concentration limits (ACLs) if the licensee concludes some ACLs for certain constituents are necessary. ACLs will be reviewed by the staff in accordance with the most current version of the NRC Str ' Technical Position " Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium > ~ > <s: Standard Format and Content Guide, and Standard Review Plan for Alternate Concentration Limit Applications" (NRC, 1996).

. 3.2 NRC Review of Completed Closure Actions Upon receipt of the CCR, decommissioning report, groundwater completion report or ACL application, the NRC staff will review the document first for completeness and level of detail. Given a favorable finding, the NRC staff will then review the content of the report for documentation of acceptable completion of the applicable aspect of closure. When, based on this review, the NRC staff determines that the action has been conducted in accordance with the license requirements and regulstions, the NRC will notify the licensee by REV.0 7 December 1996

formal correspondence, and, if the licensee so requests, amend the specific license, by deleting applicable license requirements for reclamation, decommissioning, or groundwater cleanup, and identifying requirements for any disposal cell observational period and/or environmental monitoring. As part of its review, NRC staff will conduct site inspections, examining first-hand the closure actions taken, including the QA/QC records.

Additionally, NRC staff will conduct a final construction-completion I inspection, which is expected to consist of a site walk-over and an .

examination of construction records. No independent verification of completed actions (e.g., confirmatory coring of the radon *,arrier) is expected, except on a case-by-case basis, as discussed previously, i With respect to construction of the tailings cell, the NRC staff's review of the CCR, coupled with site inspections, will ensure that the disposal cell was constructed in accordance with the approved design and done so " correctly" l (e.g., QA/QC records show the appropriate number of material lifts were placed). ,

The NRC staff will rely on site inspections as the primary means of determining acceptable implementation of the licensee's approved decommissioning plan, especially in regards to soil cleanup. These inspections will consist of: (1) reviews of procedures, (2) evaluations of t procedure implementation, (3) evaluations of records and quality assurance, and (4) limited gamma surveys and soil sampling. In this way, the staff will gain a needed level of confidence in the licensee's performance to support its .

evaluation of the final decommissioning survey report. Confirmatory sampling,  !

either by the NRC or its contractors, will be conducted at sites for which additional confirmation beyond inspections is necessary. Specific criteria will be employed to identify those sites requiring confirmatory sampling.

3.3 Observational Periods 3.3.1 Followina ComDietion of Surface Remedial Actions Although no statutory or regulatory requirement exists for an observational period following the completion of surface remedial actions, this period is necessary for the NRC to assess the potential long-term stability of the .

tailings disposal cell. The length of this observational period will be l determined on a site-specific basis, with a minimum period of one year, i commencing at the completion of the erosion cover. Licensees should report significant cell degradation (e.g., the development of settlement or erosional features) occurring during this period.

Sites employing a " full self-sustaining vegetative cover" (Criterion 4 of Appendix A) will be required to have an observational period of at least two years, and possibly as long as five years, consistent with the bases for l Appendix A (NRC, 1980). l REV.0 8 Decembw 1996

!' A de facto _ observational period may exist at most sites where cleanup of groundwater contamination continues following the completion of surface reclamation (i.e., construction of the tailings disposal cell).

3.3.2 Groundwater Remediation i As specified in Criterion 50 of Appendix A, all identified hazardous constituents for which compliance sampling is being conducted at a licensed site must be returned to the concentration limits set as standards (i.e., the j specified compliance limits) prior to termination of the specific license.  ;

At license termination, the NRC will require licensees to sample for all constituents previously identified in the tailings liquor to ensure that no i further remediation is necessary. The NRC will not terminate a specific  ;

license while a groundwater CAP is in operation.

l A groundwater CAP which employs evaporation ponds may also delay the completion of surface reclamation, if pond sludges are to be disposed of in <

the completed tailings disposal cell. l 3.4 Long-Term Site Surveillance Funding Prior to termination of the specific license, the NRC will set the final amount of the long-term site surveillance charge to be paid by the licensee in  ;

accordance with Criterion 10 of Appendix A. The NRC's process for determining i this amount will include consultations with the licensee and the custodial agency. Payment of this charge to the U.S. general treasury or to the '

appropriate State agency is required prior to termination of the specific license.

3.4.1 Bases for Determination of Surveillance Charae The basic criterion for tailings disposal is to not depend on perpetual human care and maintenance to preserve the isolation of.the tailings. The NRC, in Criterion 1 of Appendix A, concludes that:

"The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated l contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural  !

forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance." i However, as further indicated in Criterion 1, for practical purposes, specific 'l design and siting considerations must involve finite time limits. For this ]

reason, Criterion 6 contains longevity standards for design of the disposal i cell.  ;

In order that the isolation of the tailings and associated contaminants be ,

preserved to the extent possible, the Act provided that title to the byproduct  !

material and associated land be transferred to the care of the United States  ;

or the State, as discussed previously. The NRC has interpreted such long-term custody by a governmental agency, whether Federal or State, as "a prudent, added measure of control" (NRC,1980a), so that land uses that might REV.O 9 December 1996 j.

2 i

l .

. contribute to the degradation of the cover or lead to direct human exposures  :'

can be prevented.

In the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Uranium Milling (NRC,1980a), the NRC staff developed the bases for the long-term surveillance i charge, given the intent that no ongoing active maintenance of site conditions j should be necessary to preserve waste isolation.- In the GEIS, the assumptions- I underlying the so-called " passive monitoring" approach to surveillance of the i site are as follows:

1. An annual visual inspection of the site, either as a site visit or in a l flyover, lasting one to two days;  ;

i

2. No maintenance of equipment or facilities, no fence replacement, and  ;

no sampling or airborne environmental monitoring would be expected. l l

3. Little to no groundwater monitoring would be required, and if necessary, 4 monitoring would consist of sampling for indicator constituents (e.g.,  !

Ra-226) using portable equipment (no heavy sampling or monitoring i equipmentnecessary),  ;

i

4. The slow movement of groundwater beneath the sites would allow for i relatively infrequent sampling (e.g., once every 2-5 years); j i

5. Essentially, the only costs for continued surveillance / maintenance would  !

consist of time spent in preparing for the inspection, travel to the  !

site, conduct of the inspection, and annual report writing; and  !

6. Minimal NRC oversight would be required.- l Passive monitoring, thus, would not involve such activities as: irrigation, l hauling of fill, regrading, or seeding.  !

Finally, as discussed previously, licensees will contribute the funds necessary to cover the costs of long-term surveillance of their sites. The charge assessed is a one-time fee, and of an' amount such that interest on '

the funds, assuming a 1 percent annual real interest rate, will yield a corresponding amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillanca. The GEIS provides more detailed discussion regarding the determination of this interest rate.

3.4.2 Determination of Surveillance Charae Amount Based on the assumptions. discussed in Section 3.4.1, the NRC developed the minimum long-term surveillance charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars) reflected in Criterion 10 of Appendix A. It is this charge, adjusted to account for inflation, that the licensee is required to pay into the general treasury of the United States, or alternately, to the appropriate State agency (if the State-is to become the long-term site custodian). The methodology the NRC staff will use to determine the adjusted surveillance charge that accounts for inflationary increases since 1978 involves: (1) using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) available at the time the licensee requests termination and (2) applying REV.0 10 Decembw 1996

I ,

i 1.

i' the rate of increase for the last month for which it has been calculated to l any following month leading to license termination. For example, in June l 1996, the NRC determined the final surveillance charge for the TVA/Edgemont i

site. In doing so, the NRC staff used the April 1996 CPI and applied the rate of increase between March and April to the months of May and June.

Criterion 10 does allow for the escalation of this minimum charge, if, on tho  ;

basis of a site-specific evaluation, the expected site surveillance or control  !

requirements are determined to be significantly greater than those specified i in Criterion 12 of Appendix A (i.e., annual inspections to confirm site

l integrity and determine the need, if any, for maintenance and/or monitoring).  !

1 Escalation could result from a licensee's proposal of alternatives to the.  !

l requirements in Appendix A, as allowed under Section 84c of the Act. For i

{ example, a licensee could demonstrate by analysis that the only mechanism for l i achieving a minimum disposal cell design life of 200 years at its site is '

through the use of ongoing maintenance. The NRC may approve such a design if )

it finds that the design will achieve a level of stabilization and containment. i for the site concerned, and a level of protection.of public health and safety and of the environment which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or j

more stringent than, the level which would be achieved by the NRC's requirements. However, the licensee would likely be required to place additional funds in the long-term surveillance charge to cover the costs of '

the ongoing maintenance. j Another situation which may lead to the escalation of the minimum charge is I the recognition that some degree of active care (e.g., fence upkeep, i vegetation control, maintenance of erosional control measures) is necessary to i preserve the as-designed conditions of the site. This need should become l apparent in the course of site observations during the reclamation and  !

observational periods.

In any case, any escalation in the minimum charge will be discussed with the licensee and long-term custodian, prior to license termination. Any final variance in the funding requirements will be determined solely by the NRC.

A situation may arise in which the cust Mini agency desires to have commitments in the.LTSP that are beyond those required in Appendix A and which are not determined necessary by the NRC. In such a case, the amount of the long-term surveillance charge would not be affected (NRC, 1990; Detailed Comment Analysis, Comment 1.2). The custodial agency will need to identify a mechanism for funding these additional self-imposed requirements.

3.4.3 Payment of Lona-Term Surveillance Charae Licensees may pay the final site surveillance charge directly to the NRC or the custodial agency. If paid to the NRC, the. funds will be deposited, in accordance with the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, in the U.S. general treasury.

A custodial agency receiving payment from the licensee, will need to document receipt and subsequent deposition of the payment. Copies of such documentation should be provided to the NRC.

L REV.O 11 December 1996

Finally, 10 CFR 150.32(a) provides that, when an Agreement State license is  !

terminated and the disposal site is to be transferred to the Federal government for long-term care, all funds collected by the Agreement State for the purposes of long-term surveillance will be transferred to the United States.  ;

3.5 Preparation of the Long-Term Surveillance Plan While surface remediation and groundwater cleanup activities are ongoing, it is in the best interest of the licensee to begin interaction with the i custodial agency with regard to that agency's preparation of the site LTSP.

The custodial agency's responsibilities under the general license are defined 1 in the LTSP, the required contents of which are provided at 10 CFR 40.28 and in Criterion 12 of Appendix A. These contents include:

• a legal description of the site to be transferred and licensed;

• a detailed description of the site, as a baseline from which future inspectors can determine the nature and seriousness of any changes (licensees may reference previously submitted information, to the extent applicable, in providing this description (10 CFR 40.31(a)))- 1 e a detailed description of the long-term surveillance program, including: 1 (a) the frequency of inspections and reporting to the NRC; (b) the '

frequency and extent of groundwater monitoring, if required; (c) appropriate groundwater concentration limits; and (d) inspection procedures and personnel qualifications;

• the criteria for follow-up inspections in response to observations from  !

routile inspections or extreme natural events; and

• the criteria for instituting maintenance or emergency measures.

In addition to these regulatory requirements, the NRC will also require that the LTSP contain documentation of title transfer of the site from the licensee to the custodial agency. This requirement does not apply to sites located on j Indian lands, since transfer does not occur for such sites (Criterion 11F of -

Appendix A).

l Because the LTSP must reflect the remediated condition of the site, it is '

expected that the existing licensee will interact with the custodial agency in the preparation of the LTSP. As discussed in Section 2.2, this will likely involve supplying the custodial agency with appropriate documentation (e.g.,

as-built drawings) of the remedial actions taken and reaching agreements (formal or informal) with the custodial agency regarding the necessary surveillance control features of the site (e.g., boundary markers, fencing).

Although it is possible that the LTSP may be prepared by the licensee, it is more likely that the document will be developed by the custodial agency, since the LTSP will reflect post-transfer responsibilities committed to by the custodial agency. The LTSP must be submitted to the NRC for approval by the custodial agency.

REV.O 12 December 1996

l , ,

As the likely custodial agency for most, if not all, of the sites, DOE has proposed an approach intended to streamline NRC staff reviews of site LTSPs.

This approach would involve NRC ~ approval of a " generic LTSP shell" prepared and submitted by DOE. For sites under the long-term care of DOE, significant

portions of the LTSP will not change from site to site (e.g., criteria for i

, followup inspections and for instituting maintenance or emergency measures). j NRC's approval of the "shell" would cover this generic information, and allow  !

the NRC staff to focus its review on the site-specific information in the LTSP. This information may reflect site-specific activities which are not to be reflected in the long-term care charge, but are voluntarily committed to by the custodial agency. The "shell" is currently under development by the NRC and DOE.

3.6 Site Ready for License Termination When a licensee has completed site reclamation, decommissioning, and, if necessary, groundwater corrective action, and is ready to terminate its specific Source Material License, it will need to formally notify the NRC of its intentions. Such notification should be accompanied by a completed NRC i

Form 314, " Certificate of Disposition of Materials."

Additionally, an environmental report (ER) is required under 10 CFR j 51.60(b)(3) for termination of a license for the possession and use of source material for uranium milling. However, because the environmental impacts associated with reclamation and decommissioning of a uranium mill site will already have been assessed by the NRC staff prior to license termination, licensees seeking license termination can submit a supplemental ER summarizing  !

site decommissioning and reclamation objectives, activities, and results.

]

Agreement State licensees should apply to their Agreement State for license termination, providing the appropriate State-required documentation, as needed.

3.7 Termination of the Specific License / Issuance of the General License Actual termination of a licensee's specific license and the subsequent placement of the site under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28 will involve a number of separate actions to be completed by the NRC.

Significant internal coordination (and external, if Agreement State licensees are involved) will be required so that these actions will be completed in an efficient and timely manner, thereby ensuring that the byproduct material and any land used for the disposal of such byproduct material remain under NRC license throughout the process.

3.7.1 NRC Determinatirn under Section 83c/274c of the Act Under Section 83c of the Act for NRC licensees, or Section 274c for Agreement State licensees, the NRC determines whether all applicable standards and requirements have been met by the licensee in the completion of site reclamation, decommissioning, and groundwater corrective action. Necessarily, this determination will rely primarily upon NRC or Agreement State reviews and REV.O 13 December 1996

l i

acceptance of the documentation provided by the licensee. In addition, NRC cr Agreement State site closure inspection activities, potentially including r limited confirmatory radiological surveys, will provide supplemental information to the NRC's determination. ,

1 For Agreement State licensees, NRC's periodic reviews of the Agreement State's regulatory program will provide confidence that the State's reviews and licensing actions associated with termination have been conducted ,

appropriately, from a technical, administrative, and procedural perspective. '

The NRC staff will not conduct independent detailed technical reviews of a Agreement State licensee's documentation of completed sit'e decommissioning and  ;

reclamation. i 3.7.2 NRC Review and Acceptance of the LTSP An LTSP is required prior to termination of the specific license and placement of the site and byproduct material under the 10 CFR 40.28 general license.  !

Review and acceptance of the LTSP is the sole purv uw of the NRC. Formal  :

concurrence on the LTSP by other entities, including the State in which the  :

site is located, is not provided for, since these entities have no regulatory '

authority under the Act, during the long-term care period. However, the NRC will accept public comments on any licensing action taken by the Commission. ,

Lack of NRC acceptance of a site LTSP can delay termination of the specific '

license.

The NRC staff's acceptance of an LTSP will be documented in written  !

notification to the custodial agency, and, separately, by noticing the action  :

in the Federal Reaister. In addition, for Agreement State licensees, the NRC  !

will also notify the relevant Agreement State of the action.  !

3.7.2.1 Issuance of a specific order under 10 CFR 40.28 If an acceptable LTSP has not been received by the NRC for a reclaimed site ready for transfer to the custodial agency, two options are available to the NRC. First, if appropriate, the Commission may choose to not terminate the existing license for a short period of time, while awaiting an acceptable ,

LTSP. Alternately, under 10 CFR 40.28, the NRC may issue a specific order to the custodial agency to take custody of the site and to commence long-term surveillance, while the agency prepares the LTSP for final NRC approval.

A substantial supporting basis would be required to support NRC issuance of an order. An understanding of the circumstances leading to the custodial agency's inability to take the site would also be necessary. Factors that would be considered include whether:

(1) adequate notice (at least 16 months) has been provided by the existing licensee to allow the custodial agency to affect title transfer to the land and byproduct material; i

(2) sufficient time (at least two years) has been allowed for the custodial agency to prepare, and the NRC to review, the LTSP; i

REV.O 14 December 1996 l l

t

{

(3) the NRC has reviewed the CCR, decommissioning report, and i groundwater cleanup report, and conducted the final license-  ;

termination inspection and found that the closure actions were  ;

completed in an acceptable manner; {

e (4) site degradation has occurred, and if so, whether appropriate repairs have been completed; (5) the required long-term surveillance funding payments have been made I to the U.S. general treasury or to the designated State agency; and (6) the custodial agency has an acceptable basis for delaying for j inclusion of the site under the general license.  !

i In cases where DOE or another Presidentially-designated Federal agency is to 1 be the long-term custodian, and is unable to take custody of the site due to l lack of funding, the NRC may still order the agency to do so. The intended ,

custodial agency will have at most one year (i.e., the time by which an annual ,

site inspection is to have been completed) in which to obtain the funds  ;

through the necessary appropriations process.

]

3.7.3 Transfer of Site Control to the Custodial Aaency Given a determination that all applicable standards and requirements have been met and acceptance of the site LTSP, the NRC will need to complete the remaining relevant licensing actions: (1) terminating the specific license by )

letter of termination addressed to the specific licensee, or concurring in the i Agreement State's termination of the specific license; (2) placing the site under the general license in 10 CFR 40.28; (3) noticing in the Federal Reaister the completion.of these licensing actions; and (4) informing appropriate Federal and State officials directly of the termination of the specific license and the placement of the site under the general license.  ;

For Agreement State licenses, these actions will need to be closely coordinated with the relevant Agreement State. Following the NRC's concurrence in the proposed action, the Agreement State should be ready to terminate the specific license and to transfer the long-term care funds to the  ;

U.S. general treasury upon notification from the NRC that the LTSP has been  !

accepted. The long-term custodian, for its part, should be prepared to accept title to the land and byproduct material. Completion of these final actions should occur within a relatively short period of time (e.g., within a week).

REV.O 15 December 1996

O 4.0 ADDITIONAL ISSUES 4.1 UMTRCA Title II Sites on Indian Lands For UMTRCA Title II disposal sites on Indian lands, UMTRCA provides that long-term surveillance will be accomplished by the Federal government and that the licensee (i.e., the custodial agency) will be required to enter into arrangements with the NRC to ensure this surveillance. UMTRCA does not state  !

explicitly which Federal agency is responsible for the disposal site. In 1 addition, because these sites are located on Indian lands, no title transfer will occur.

The NRC will work out long-term care arrangement for these disposal sites on a i case-by-case basis. Likely, this will involve a site access agreement between j the Indian Tribe, the custodial agency, and the NRC, to allow the custodial l agency to conduct the required site surveillance. Currently, the only site on Indian lands is Western Nuclear, Inc.'s Sherwood uranium mill, located on the Spokane Indian Tribe reservation in eastern Washington State.  !

l 4.2 Concurrent Jurisdiction It is the intent of the NRC staff to make a good faith effort in working with the States on irsues related to a licensee's completion of remedial actions and preparation for license termination. However, concurrent jurisdictional issues between the NRC and the States may arise over the regulation of the non-radiological constituents of groundwater (previously, the NRC has concluded that it has sole jurisdiction over the radiological groundwater constituents (NRC, 1980b)). Such issues would involve disagreements over t h groundwater concentration limits to which licensees must restore, especially when a State's concentration limits for certain constituents are lower than  :

the NRC's. While the NRC staff will, to the extent possible, accommodate a State's perspective, it retains the right to terminate a specific license should a licensee have completed closure activities in accordance with NRC-approved closure plans.

Where the issues involved are not those of direct NRC concern, the NRC staff will address such issues with the States or other Federal agencies on a case- j by-case basis. j Currently, four sites (two NRC licensees: the United Nuclear Corporation /

Church Rock site, and the Homestake Mining Company / Grants site; and two Agreement State licensees: the Cotter Corp / Canon City and the UMETC0/Uravan sites, both in Colorado) are on the Superfund National Priorities List. For i these sites, the NRC considers that it will need to determine if it is i appropriate to terminate any of these licenses on a case-by-case basis.

l REV.0 16 December 1996

, . l

. l l

5.0 REFERENCES

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC),1980a, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling," NUREG-0706, 3 vols, September 1980.

NRC,1980b, "0 ELD Legal Opinion on Two Questions Relating to Operation of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978," Shapar, H.K., memorandum to Commissioner Ahearne, April 28, 1980.

NRC,1990, "Rulemaking Issue (Affirmation): Amendments to 10 CFR Part 40 for General Licenses for the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings Disposal Sites," SECY-90-282, August 10, 1990.

NRC, 1996, " Staff Technical Position: Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills: Standard Format and Content Guide, and Standard Review Plan for Alternate Concentration Limit Applications," February 1996.

l l

l l

l I

l REV.O 17 December 1996