ML20137M739
| ML20137M739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/1984 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136E683 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR46418, RULE-PR-40 AB50-2-06, AB50-2-6, NUDOCS 8512040002 | |
| Download: ML20137M739 (75) | |
Text
. .
, & Yx ?nArT gry b n >J .
205 50/84/02/15 MAR 0 21984 M 0 21984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissiorgr Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS (SECY-83-523 AND 523A)
The purpose of this memorandum is to address issues raised by Martin G.
Malsch, Deputy General Counsel, in SECY-83-523A and to offer staff recommendations fo* modifying the proposed rule changes in response.
The first step deals with the Part I items beginning on page 4 of SECY-83-523A where OGC agrees with staff or the modifications are minor.
The second step deals with the areas of disagreement and offers two solutions as Enclosures A-1 and A-2. Both enclosures contain the changes covered in the following discussion for Criterion 1 and are in a comparative text format.
Step 1 Point 1 under OGC Part I suggests that the longevity goal was totally deleted from the rule. We added the EPA requirement to Criterion 6 and thought that we had done as point 1 suggests. We consider the placement editorial and have modified Criterion 1 as suggested by OGC.
Poir,t 2 agrees with staff recommendations to reflect EPA's requirements to protect all ground water and this was done. No modifications are necessary.
Point 3 agrees with proposed modifications of Criterion 5 on liners and no modifications are necessary in response.
0FC : : .
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE : : : : : . :
8512040002 851115 PDR PR 40 49FR46418 PDR
205/KSD/84/02/15
-g_
2 Point 4 agrees with the change from 2 to 20 pCi/m /s in Criterion 6 and no modifications are necessary in response.
Points 5 and 6 agree with proposed changes to Criteria 6 and 8 on radon releases and no modifications are necessary.
Point 7 agrees with listing references to 40 CFR Parts 190 and 440 in Criterion 8 and no modifications are necessary.
Step 2 The areas of disagreement cover the "no maintenance" language in Criteria 1 and 12, the below grade prime option in Criterion 3, all the siting and design changes in Criterion 4, and the prescriptive requirements on covers in Criterion 6.
Enclosure A-1 is a proposed revised Federal Register Notice which reflects the basic technical staff position that the proposed changes to Criterion 1 and 12 on maintenance, Criterion 3 on below grade disposal, Criterion 4 on siting and design, and Criterion 6 on cover specifications represent changes to the collective prescriptive requirements that defined the standard of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 for radon emanation and cover stability. Enclosure A-1 reaffirms the point that the technical evaluation of what is necessary to comply with the EPA standard is not a legal issue. The Staff still believes that on a technical basis most of the originally prepared changes are not discretionary and that the changes are justified. However, some accommodation of the 0GC views has been made in additional explanatory text, and in restoring language on earthen covers in Criterion 6.
Publication of Enclosure A-1 for comment has practical value in addition to the technical issues. A proposed rule is not binding. Enclosure A-1 should solicit more considered comments and a specific request for comments on the issues raised by OGC is included in new text. If warranted by public comments and Commission consideration, a final rule as outlined in Enclosure A-2 could be adopted. If the public is not even aware we are considering the changes outlined in Enclosure A-1, how can they respond? The notice for the final rule could include an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the prescriptive requirements as outlined by OGC for Part II.
Enclosure A-2 contains comparative text to implement OGC views.
Enclosure A-2 basically restores the original requirements of Appendix A 0FC : : :
NAME : : : . : : :
DATE : : : : : : :
205/KSD/84/02/15 3-
_w ith the changes noted in Part I of the OGC memorandum and a few other clarifying changes.
The staff has also included an explicit provision for alternatives to the specific requirements in Appendix A. The provision would allow flexibility for alternatives to both the pre-existing Appendix A requirements and the new EPA requirements added to Appendix A. The alternative provision would paraphrase the language in Section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and be inserted in the Introduction to Appendix A. Section 84c, which was added by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, contemplates flexibility in applying the EPA and NRC standards and rules. The changes the staff originally proposed were intended to nrovide flexibility which could then be supplemented by exemptions to Part 40, if needed. The changes covered those areas where licensee initiated alternatives were most likely to occur. The proposed addition to the Introduction would build in the opportunity to handle alternatives as a routine licensing matter where the applicant could provide supporting rationale on a case-by-case basis.
The 0GC memorandum cites Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States Inc. vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
,U.S. (decided June 24, 1983) as bearing significantly on the course of action that NRC should take in its procedure for conforming amendments. The staff does not see this case as remarkable. It involved a review of revocation of an auto safety standard under a special statute that applied APA procedures to revocation of standards as well as their promulgation. The Court held that the agency action in revoking the passive restraint standards for auto safety was subject to judicial review under an " arbitrary and capricious" standard, and that the agency was arbitrary and capricious in revoking the passive restraint standard because it threw out both passive seat belts and air bags on the basis of unsubstantiated problems with seat belts. The agency had failed to make the rational connection between the facts found (i.e., problems with seat belts) and the choice made (elimination of both passive seat belts and air bags). The alternative that the agency failed to consider was the air bag itself, which had been included in the revoked passive restraint standard.
Agencies are not required, however, to consider all policy alternatives in reaching a decision (slip opinion p. 20).
It goes without saying that judicial review of this rulemaking proceeding is subject to the " arbitrary and capricious" standard of review and that 0FC : : :
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE : : : : : : :
205/KSD/84/02/15 NRC must show a rational connection between the facts found and the thoice made. The facts include a statutory directive to conform to EPA standards that establish the ground rules for technical implementing requirements and the technical evaluation of the need for retention of prescriptive requirements that were promulgated to achieve a different standard (i.e, 2 picocuries/m2/s and thousands of years of stability).
The choice recommended by the staff is to propose modification of those prescriptive criteria that are not technically justifiable in terms of the EPA standard of 20 picocuries/m2/s emanation rate for radon and one thousand yeap longevity for cover. If the former NRC standards of 2 picocuries/m /s and thousands of years of cover stability are changed, it is rational to modify the other prescriptive technical requirement.s promulgated to achieve the primary standards. It could be considered arbitrary and capricious not to make such changes. To do as OGC suggests, that is, simply change thousands of years to one thousand and 2 picocuries to 20 picocuries, without modification of closely allied prescriptive requirements can be seen to ignore the relationship between the prescriptive requirements and the primary standard. For example, the retention of the 3 meter cover requirement is a de facto 2 picocurie emanation rate at 9% soil moisture (see GEIS p. 11-12, figure 11.'.). We do not understand OGC to be saying that the prescriptive requirements in criteria 3, 4, and 6 are needed to achieve the EPA standard, but only that for procedural reasons they be retained at present.
The course of action outlined in the OGC memorandum, which reduces conforming changes to the barest minimum, and characterizes all others as
" discretionary," has to~be understood as a demanding effort that may take several years to complete. It will demand substantial commitment of manpower and contractual effort since it will require reevaluation of all existing environmental work performed by NRC on mill tailings. The extensive environmental' work performed by EPA is relegated to secondary status as supportive only of the minimal changes.
In this case the staff believes that the Commission is faced with a more difficult decision than appears on the face of SECY-83-523 and 523A.
That decision is to decide for mill tailings regulation the acceptable cost to the Agency, in terms of manpower and resource commitment, of minimizing litigation risks by building the substantially revised rulemaking record implicit in the OGC recommendation. In the long run the approach in Enclosure A-2 based on the OGC recommendation will be more costly in terms of agency resources, but could reduce litigation 0FC : : :
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE : : : : : : :
205/KSD/84/02/15 risks from environmental groups. Whether it will reduce litigative risk from the uranium milling industry is problematical.
Two final points in response to the OGC comments in SECY-83-523A are necessary. 0GC places a great deal of emphasis on limits on EPA authority. OGC's position is that standards that include implementation matters are outside EPA authority. See Comment 1 of the attachment to SECY-83-523A. EPA promulgated its standards under Section 275b of the Atomic Energy Act. Section 275b says "the Administrator...shall, by rule, promulgate standards of general application for the protection of the public health, safety and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards...." " General application" can be properly interpreted as applicable to all licensees in the same situation rather than interpreted to mean that EPA standards cannot force specific implementation measures. Further, under Section 275b the scope of EPA authority is identical for both radiological and nonradiological standards since both are referred to as standards of general application.
For tailings, the implementation reference in Section 275d is not exclusive and does not have to be interpreted as precluding the EPA standards from including implementation aspects. This situation is legally different from the authority that EPA exercises under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. Under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, EPA is limited to establishing only enviromental protection standards that apply outside the boundary of the licensed facility, thus providing a legal basis to argue that EPA cannot deal in onsite implementation matters. If OGC believes that the scope of EPA's authority under Section 275b of the Atomic Energy Act is equally limited, then the inevitable conclusion is that 40 CFR 192 is not'a lawful regulation because it contains highly prescriptive implementing provisions for groundwater protection.
In the paper, OGC also questioned whether recent studies on the health effects associated with exposure to radon invalidated GEIS findings. The Uranium Mill Tailings Task Force addressed three recent studies on pages 9 and 10 of its report entitled, " Radiological Analysis of Mill Tailings Control Requirements (Enclosure 3 of SECY-83-195 dated May 20, 1983).
The Task Force concluded that the final combination of factors from these recent studies would "... result in risk estimates similar to those previously published by the NRC (GEIS)."
Staff recommends the publication of Enclosure A-1 but would be willing to accept Enclosure A-2 so that a proposed rule can be published before the statutory deadline of April 1, 1984 for final conforming changes to be in 0FC : : :
NAME : : : : : : : )
DATE : : : : : : :
205/KSD/84/02/15 place. The approach suggested in Part II of the OGC comments cannot be done in time to be published as part of a proposed rule before the deadline.
,. -- . .n . ... , t n ..g William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Proposed FRN A-1
- 2. Proposed FRN A-2 NOTE: Approach and memorandum coordinated with DNussbaumer, SP; RDSmith, URF0; DCool, FC.
s i
- D S Nf(S DM hardt JGD 84/ / 84'2/'2l 1
l l
vo75';h bM 1
- - 3CUA------ -
-- : n n .g, -------- --.,-- e - : - #0- 9, Mg[in 'f , LHigginb NAME : KDragonette:DEMac E thain -
- REBrowqig f -- WJpiscJut
:----------- :------------:------ ---- :,$ , g a,6( M. MJBeli .
DATE : 84/02/ l'- 84/02CM :
84/02/7y N 84/02/
84/02Q3 84/0j/C/
y
i 1
Distribution:
WI s/f 205 i- WMLU r/f i NMSS r/f
! RFonner, ELD 4
GCunningham, ELD DNussbaumer, SP RWilde, FC DCool, FC RECunningham, FC RDSmith, URF0 JCollins, RIV LHigginbotham DMartin MJBell
! REBrowning 1
DMausshardt JGDavis WJDircks i ED0 EDO r/f OGC OPE 4
SECY j KSDragonette 3
i l
i I
}
f I
f i
Ja;
.: r A w m._
$ 6 m ail 2> < < . a . . . !
CE [7590-01]
. 3l *lEV NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailing Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The proposed rule changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations
, to the regulations recently published by the Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of the environment from these wastes. This action is necessary to comply with the legislative mandate set out in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983.
DATE: The comment period expires on (30 days after publication).
Comments received by the Commission after that date will not be considered.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fonner, Office of the Executive Legal Director, telephcne (301) 492-8692, or Dan E. Martin, Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telechone (301) 427-4642.
1 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is proposing modifications to its regulations for the purpose of conforming them to generally applicable requirements recently promul-gated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These new EPA requirements are contained in Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983), are applicable to the management of uranium and thorium byproduct material, and became effective for NRC and Agreement State licensees and license applicants on December 6, 1983.
i The action proposed herein would modify previously existing regulations of the Commission to conform them to the new EPA requirements, and would incorporate certain of the new EPA requirements into the Commission's regulations. The affected Commission regulations are contained in Appen-dix A to 10 CFR Part 40, which was promulgated in final form on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65521).
The modifications to Commission regulations proposed herein will incorporate within NRC regulations some of the new EPA requirements. The action that the Commission will take with respect to the remainoer of these new EPA requirements is the subject of an Advanced Notice of Pro-posed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which requests comment on that. subject, also issued this day. These new EPA requirements were developed and issued by EPA pursuant to section 275b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2022),
as added by Section 206 of Pub. L.95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Under Section 18(a) of Pub.
L.97-415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Commission is required to conform its regula-tions to EPA's by no later than March 31, 1984, with notice and oppor-tunity for public comment. Today's proposal furthers fulfillment of that responsibility.
Previous Actions In keeping with Section 18(a) of the NRC Authorization Act, the Commission suspended portions of its October 3, 1980 mill tailings ragu-lations af ter notice and opportunity for public comment (48 FR 35350; August 4, 1983). This suspension terminates automatically upon the earlier of (1) the conclusion of this conforming rulemaking, or (2) April 1,1984 2 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
Those portions of the Commission's regulations which are now suspended are those that were determined to be in conflict or inconsistent with EPA's proposed requirements. More specifically, the suspended portions are those that would require a major commitment or major action by licensees which would be unnecessary if (1) the EPA proposed standards were promulgated in final form without modification, and (2) the Commis-sion's regulations were modified to conform to the EPA standards. The objective of the suspension was to avoid a situation where a licensee or applicant migFt make a major commitment or take a major action which would be unnecessary or ill-advised after this subsequent rulemaking to permanently modify the existing regulations on the basis of EPA's final standards.
The final EPA standards are very similar to those that were proposed.
There is, for that reason, a good deal of similarity between the changes to Commission regulations effected temporarily by suspension and those proposed today to be made permanent. Nevertheless, the Commission has reconsidered the appropriateness of the entirety of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in light of the new EPA standards, and the changes proposed today are not fully consistent with the previous suspension. Differences, except for additions, are explicitly identified. All additions are differences since nothing was added to Appendfx A in the suspension.
Scope of This Proposal In addition to conforming its existing regulations to new EPA stan-dards, under the provisions of the UMTRCA, the Commission has a further legislated responsibility; it must establish general requirements, for the management of byproduct material, with EPA concurrence, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements applicable to the management of similar hazardous material regulated by the EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended. The Commission deliberated as to how best to deal with these related rule-making needs and decided on the course of action resulting in this pro-posal and the accompanying ANPRM. This proposal addresses all the changes considered appropriate to the existing Commission regulations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. Other changes to the Commission's regula-3 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
tions for mill tailings management resulting from the EPA standard are the subject of the accompanying ANPRM.
.. The content of these tao rulemakings also may be characterized in terms of the need for EPA concurrence, although that was not the deciding factor. This proposal consists of modifications not requiring EPA con-currence, including conforming changes to existing NRC rules and incor-paration of EPA requirements not deriving from the SWDA. Those modifi-cations that are the subject of the ANPRM accompanying this proposal require EPA concurrence pursuant to section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Modifications addressed in the ANPRM include (1) incorporation into NRC regulations of SWOA requirements already imposed by the EPA, and (2) any further modifications to NRC regulations necessary to establish SWOA-comparable requirements as called for by the UMTRCA. This course of action was chosen to allow the Commission to both conform its regulations to EPA's and incorporate non-SWDA provisions in a prompt and orderly manner, in accordance with the schedule set by Congress, and deal with the complex of SWOA requirements and issues in a separate, comprehensive and unified rulemaking.
Content of This Procosal The new EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 192, (48 FR 45926) included by reference several sections from 40 CFR Part 264, promulgated by the EPA pursuant to authority provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which modified the SWDA. These SWDA (or RCRA) requirements imposed under 40 CFR Part 192 are addressed in the ANPRM accompanying this proposal. The few conforming changes to NRC's exist-ing Appendix A regulations made necessary by these newly imposed SWDA requirements are addressed in this document, as are conforming changes and other changes necessary to reflect and incorporate the non-SWDA
- elements of EPA's new requirements. These non-SWDA provisions include requirements to--
(1) Adhere to applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 190 " Environ-mental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Fower Operations" for uranium byproduct material, and essentially the same requirements for thorium byproduct material; 4 Enclosure A-1
, [7590-01]
(2) Adhere to applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category: Effluent Limitations Guide-
- . lines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, l and Vanadium Ores Subcategory."
i (3) Maintain releases of radon to the atmosphere during operations '
as low as is practicable; (4) Close disposal areas so as to provide reasonable assurance of effective control for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years; (5) Limit average post-closure releases of radioactive radon gas to no more than 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2 -s); and (6) Set limits for residual concentrations of radioactive radium left in soil, above background, in onsite areas not subject to the closure requirements for longevity and radon release control.
The Commission is croposing many revisions to Appendix A which are con-sidered necessary to conform it to the physical stability aspects of the i EPA standard, which requires that the final cover design provide reason-able' assurance of effective control "for one thousand years, to the extent reasonablv achievable, and in any case, for at least 200 years."
The EPA's numerical longevity standard takes an entirely different approach to stability than do the NRC requirements. In Appendix A, the NRC established numerous prescriptive recuirements for specific design features in order to assure stability without active maintenance for an indefinite period of time following closure. The EPA rule sets a cerform-
- ance standard for a limited time period. In addition, the preamble to the EPA standard and the supporting environmental evaluation, indicate l that the EPA consciously considered the acceptability of relying on active 4
maintenance to provide stability following closure, and did not prohibit I it. Rather, the EPA standard requires that, for nonradiological hazards
- the need for active maintenance only be minimized. In its present form, i
the NRC's Appendix A flatly prohibits any planned reliance on active l
maintenance. These are profound differences that of necessity appear to compel a complete set of changes to NRC's prese.-iotive requirements.
i r
5 Enclosure A-1
J- -
1 4 .
i i [7590-01] l 1
Accordingly, the changes to Appendix A proposed herein are based on the l Commission's view that to properly conform its regulations to the EPA standard, it should delete or modify the prescriptive requirements for specific design features which are not necessary to meet the EPA stand-ard and which, indeed, may be contrary to the function of a cerformance standard to set the goal but not dictate the precise methods for achiev-ing it. The prescriptive requirements in question include those for mini-mizing upstream drainage area, siting where there is good wind orotection, oroviding a 3-meter minimum thickness of cover material, relatively flat slopes, rock armoring, etc. The Commission is also proposing to delete
- the prohibition on reliance on active maintenance.
I The Commission con-siders these changes appropriate to allow operators the greatest degree l
of flexibility in meeting the EPA standards, and to avoid the situation j wherein NRC requirements go beyond EPA's, in areas which EPA specifically i
j addressed in its standard setting process. Also, in order to assure that
{ NRC requirements do not fall short of EPA's, the exact language from the EPA standard is proposed for incarcoration into Commission regulations.
The Commission recognizes that there may be differing views on this i
approach and specifically invites comments on this subject. Comments are also invited on all of the individual changes proposed herein, Dar-ticularly with respect to the consistency of those changes with the approach outlined above, and on the need for any further changes to i
Appendix A for the purpose of conforming to the EPA standard. Commenters i are requested to distinguish between comments on this proposal and com-ments on the underlying EPA standards.
Proposed Modifications and Rationale
! In accordance with the above, the Commission proposes the following modifications to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40:
- 1. Introduction. !
(a) In the second sentence of the third paragraph, change " amend-ability" to " amenability."
Reason: This change corrects a typographical error.
- 6 Enclosure A-1
.__ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . . ..._._ _ _ . _ ~ . _ _
[7590-01]
(b) Delete the fourth paragraph in its entirety.
Reason: This change deletes an information submittal requirement
_. which was established in connection with implementation of the original Appendix A criteria. The due date originally set for submittals is past.
A new due date for revised submittals is not considered necessary.
- 2. Criterion 1.
(a) In the first paragraph delete the phrase [s]"...for thousands of years..." and insert " .for 1,000 years. " and delete the ohrase
"...without ongoing active maintenance... ."
Reason: The thousands of years language conflicts with the 40 CFR 192.32(b) standard of design of control measures to be effective for 1,000 years. [ Farther;-aftheagh) 40 CFR 264.111[: which] is included by reference in the EPA standard in 40 CFR 192.32(b)[-]. It requires that for nonradiological hazards the need for maintenance be minimized, and although the EPA standard itself is silent on maintenance for radiological
- hazard control measures, the creamble accomoanying the EPA standard l [snd-cocid-thus] allows [seme-fimited] secondary reliance on active maintenance for limited periods of time. [The-i-000 year-peried-in-the preferred-siternative-far-the-100 year peried-the-EPA-views-as-reasonable to-rely-en-insti-tutional contreis-te provide-active-maintenance-] As the physical and chemical orocerties of tailings are such that separation of the chemical and radiological hazards is not feasible the requirements pertaining to maintenance must be aoplied uniformly in any case. On this basis, the Commission would not flatly prohibit, in all cases, planned reliance on active maintenance.
(b) In the second listed item of the first paragraph, delete the word " usable."
Reason: Both 40 CFR 264.221 and 40 CFR 264.92, which are included by reference in 40 CFR 192.32(a), require isolation of contaminants from all qualities of groundwater, not just usable groundwater sources.
(c) Modify the last paragraph reading, " Tailings shall be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve condi-tions of the site," to read " Tailings shall be disposed of in a manner that minimizes the degree to which active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site."
7 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
Reason: The EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192 do not prohibit all reliance on maintenance. For nonradiological hazards, 40 CFR 264.111 requires that the need for maintenance after closure be minimized. The change would reduce the stringency of the NRC requirement so as to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 192 as discussed under (a) above.
Note: In the third listed item of the first paragraoh. the phrase
. .over the long-term.. " was previously suspended and the last of Criterion 1 was previously suspended in full.
- 3. Criterion 3.
(a) Delete in its entirety the first sentence which reads "The
' prime option' for disposal of tailings is placement below grade, either in mines or specially excavated pits (that is,'where the need for any specially constructed retention structure is eliminated)."
Reason: The sentence has no effect other than to label below grade disposal as the ' prime option. ' This is misleading and confusing in that it gives the impression that above grade disposal could not be approved.
Under the longevity standard of 40 CFR Part 192, it is durability rather than disposal mode which determines acceptability.
(b) Modify the second sentence where it reads "... consideration of this disposal mode," to read "...concideration of the below grade disposal mode."
Reason: The change is of an editorial nature to replace the pronoun
'this' with 'the below grade.' Although the requirement to consider below grade disposal was previously suspended along with the rest of Criterion 3, a requirement for consideration only is not inconsistent with EPA's 40 CFR Part 192 and the Commission believes it should remain.
(c) Delete the third and fourth sentences in their entirety, beginn-ing with "In some instances, ..." and ending with "...are not available."
8 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01] l 1
l Reason: The sentences are explanatory in nature, and do not properly reflect consideration of EPA's new requirements, especially for ground-
-. water protection. For this reason they are potentially misleading and confusing.
(d) Delete the last sentence beginning with "In these cases, ..."
and ending with "... erosional forces."
Reason: The sentence places a generic burden of proof requirement on above grade disposal which is at odds with the acceptability stan-dards established by EPA's requirement for durability a.1d longevity of control in 40 CFR 192.32(b).
Note: The entirety of Criterion 3 was previously suspended.
- 4. Criterion 4.
(a) Revise the first sentence, in its entirety, to read "To the extent necessary to meet the closure requirements in Criterion 6, the applicant or licensee shall adhere to the following site and design criteria:"
Reason: The revision clarifies that the remainder of Criterion 4 applies only to the extent necessary to adhere to the Criterion 6 closure standards, which are proposed herein to reflect the new EPA standards for longevity of control and radon release limitations. The elements of unmodified Criterion 4 set orescriative reouirements designed, when taken in combination, to assure stability for substantially longer than is required by the EPA standard. The limitation of their applicability in accordance with this change, and modifications to the individual criteria as described below, are considered necessary to avoid having a generally applicable requirement more stringent than the EPA durability and longevity gandard.
(b) Revise paragraph (a) by replacing " minimized" with "sufficiently small," deleting " maximum possible," and adding at the end "...so as to provide reasonable assurance of meeting the longevity standard in Criterion 6."
Reason: The changes revise and clarify the restrictions placed on upstream catchment area so as to be consistent with the EPA durability and longevity standard now reflected in proposed Criterion 6. Unmodified, the language requires flatly that upstream drainage area be minimized.
This may not be necessary to meet the numerical EPA durability and longevity standard.
9 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
For example, additional rock artering and riprao can comoensate for a larger upstream drainage area.
Note: Paragraph (a) was previously suspended in its entirety.
(c) Delete paragraph (b) in its entirety.
Reason: It may not be necessary for topographic features to provide good wind protection in order to meet the EPA longevity and durability standard for example, engineering methods (e.g. , rock armoring) should be able to provide sufficient wind protection to meet the EPA design standard of 1,000 years of effective control.
(o) In the first sentence of Daragraph (c), delete the phrase
..be relatively flat af ter final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to..."
Reason: The 1,000 year design lifetime in the EPA longevity stan-dard might be met by engineering or other methods rather than "relatively flat" features, and it may not be necessary to " minimize" erosion poten-tial. It may be acceptable under the EPA standard, and more practicable, to apply a relatively more erosive but thicker cover.
(e) Delete the remainder of paragraph (c) beginning with "The broad objective. . ." and ending with ". . . identi fied."
Reason: The deleted language is misleading [snd-st-edds witn] as it contains crescriative elements which may not be necessary to meet the EPA durability and longevity standard. Under the EPA requirement, acceptability is a function of overall durability rather than specific design features, and it may not be necessary to have final cover sloces as characterized in the deleted language. Also, the language is unneces-sary in view of the proposed retainment of elements of Criterion 3 requiring that steepness of slopes be minimized to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
(f) Relabel paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
Reason: For editorial consistency.
(g) Delete the first sentence of paragraph (d), beginning "A full self-sustaining vegetative..." and ending "...to negligible levels."
Reason: The first sentence mandates a rock or vegetative cover to reduce erosion. Further language outlines possible exceptions but the standard is established by the first sentence. While a rock cover or 10 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
vegetative cover is a very effective way to meet the EPA standard, it may not be the only way to meet the 1000 year effective design [eejective)
- requirement. As exclained in (d) above, it may not be necessary to reduce erosion to negligible levels to meet the EPA longevity standard. The Commission believes that this and similar language should be deleted so as to provide [maximem] flexibility to mill operators in devising plans to meet the EPA longevity standard, and to avoid the imoosition of a potentially more stringent standard through apolication of orescriptive recuirements for specific design features.
(h) Delete the second and third sentences of paragraph (d) beginning with "Where a full..." and ending with "... pile."
Reason: See (d) and (g) above.
(i) In the fourth sentence of paragraph (d) beginning "The following factors...," replace the words "the final" in the phrase "...in establish-ing the final rock cover. . " with "any."
Reason: See (g) above. Rock covering is not flatly required. The words "the final" are modified to clarify this situation.
(j) In the first listed item in paragraph (d), delete the paren-thetical phrase "(excepting bedding material average particles size shall be at least cobble size or greater)."
Reason: The phrase specifies technical requirements on rock size that may not be necessary to meet the EPA design objective. This change will allow flexibility to use whatever size rock meets the EPA standard.
(k) Delete in its entirety the fourth paragraph of paragraph (d) beginning with " Individual rock fragments shall..." and ending with
"...shall not be used."
Reason: The fourth paragraph specifies technical requirements on rock properties that may not be necessary to meet the EPA design objec-tive. The change retains flexibility to accept greater quantities of lesser quality rock, or other designs in keeping with the EPA longevity standard.
(1) Delete the fifth paragraph of paragraph (d) in its entirety, beginning with " Rock covering..." and ending with "...of this criterion."
Reason: The listing of requirements needed to support a justifica-tion for not using a rock cover is [at-edds with] inaporopriate in view 11 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
of the form of the numerical EPA longevity standard. This change is made to be consistent with (g) above.
Note: In the fifth paragraph of paragraph (d), th'e first phrase
" Rock covering of slopes may not be required..." was not previously suspended.
(m) Delete the first sentence of the last paragraph of para-graph (d) beginning "Furthermore, all impoundments..." and ending
... slope gradient."
Reason: While contouring to minimize concentrated surface runoff or sharp changes in flow will enhance long-term stability, such contour-ing to totally avoid problem areas may not be required in all cases by the EPA design lifetime standard of 1,000 years to the extent practicable and 200 years in any case.
(n) In the second sentence of the last paragraph of paragraph (d) delete "In addition to rock cover on slopes. . ." and ". . .with substantial rock cover (rip rap)." Replace " areas toward" with " Areas toward."
Reason: See (g) above.
(o) Relabel paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), as (c), (d), and (e),
respectively.
Reason: For editorial consistency.
(5) Criterion 5.
(a) In the first paragraph, delete the first two sentences beginn-ing " Steps shall be taken..." and ending "... potential uses." and the phrase " ..in order to accomplish this objective." in the third sentence.
Reason: The EPA groundwater protection standards referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(a) do not permit any seepage to groundwater.
(b) In the first listed item under the first paragraph beginning with " Installation of..." delete the words " low permeability" as a char-acteristic of bottom liners.
Reason: The EPA groundwater protection standard referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(a) requires a finer that prevents migratio.i of wastes out of the impoundment into the adjacent soil and groundwater. Low permea-bility implies tnat some migeiriion is allowed.
12 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
Note: In the first listed item under the first paragraph, the last two full sentences, beginning with "Where clay liners.. " and ending with
- "... months of exposure))," were previously suspended.
(c) In the second paragraph beginning "Where groundwater impacts.. "
delete the phrase "to its potential use before milling operations began to the maximum extent practicable."
Reason: The EPA standard in 40 CFR 192.33, by referencing 40 CFR 264.100, requires a corrective action program to restore groundwater to standards established under 40 CFR 264.92-94. This standard is essen-tially a nondegradation standard. Restoration of groundwater quality only to the extent necessary to restore its potential use is inconsis-tent with the EPA standard.
(d) Delete in its entirety the third paragraph beginning "While the primary method of protecting ground water shall be isolation..." and ending ". . . from current or potential uses."
Reason: The EPA standards for groundwater protection in 40 CFR 192.32(a) protect groundwater primarily on the basis of background-level concentration limits for hazardous constituents, and not in terms of current or potential uses. The deleted sentence allowed consideration of tailings in contact with groundwater. The EPA standard permits no seep-age to groundwater.
(e) In the-first sentence of the fifth paragrapn beginning "This information shall be gathered..." delete the word " usable" where it modifies " groundwater."
R' eason: The EPA standard in 10 CFR 192.32(a) does not distinguish between " usable" and nonusable aquifers. The groundwater protection standard -applies universally to aquifers of any quality or potential use.
- 6. Criterion 6.
(a) Delete the first sentence in entirety, beginning with "Suffi-cient earth cover. . ." and ending with ". . . meter per second.", and in its place insert "In cases where waste byproduct material is to be perm:nently disposed, the waste disposal area shall be closed in accordance with a design 1 for an earthen cover which shall provide reasonable assurance of control of radiologicci hazards to (i) be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, 13 Enclosure A-1
t
[7590-01]
and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as to
- not exceed an average 2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m:s)."
Reason: The change replaces previous Commission requirements for minimum cover thickness and post-closure radon control with the EPA stand-arcs for durability and longevity and radon control. The EPA standard in 40 CFR.192.32(b) for environmental protection af ter closure does not stipulate a minimum cover, but rather a longevity requirement for whatever control is applied. The control method must also provide reasonable assur-ance that releases of radon-222 do not exceed 20 picocuries per square meter per second, rather than 2 picocuries. Under the EPA standard the thickness of cover will be a function of design longevity and control of radon releases with no set minimum thickness. As the 3-meter minimum thickness recuirement may not be necessary to meet the EPA longevity and radon control reouirements, it is oroposed for deletion.
(b) Add to Criterion 6 the following two footnotes which accompany the revised first sentence: footnote (1) "The standard applies to design.
Monitoring for radon after installation of an appropriately designed cover
- is not required," and footnote (2) "This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least one year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct mate-rials and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site.
The standard, however, applies only to emissions from byproduct materials to the atmosphere."
Reason: This change is necessary to fully incorporate the EPA radon control standard, as it is identically footnoted in 40 CFR 192.32(b).
Note: In the first sentence in Criterion 6, only the words "but not less than three meters" and "to less than two picocuries per square meter per second" were previously suspended.
(c) In the fif th sentence of the first paragraph, replace "non-soiled" with "non-soil," and delete the words "to reduce tailings covers to less than three meters."
1 14 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
Reason: The changes correct a typographical error, and delete a reference to the three-meter minimum cover thickness requirement which
- is no longer appropriate.
Note: In the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, the words
"... crack or. ." were previously suspended.
(d) Delete the second to last and last sentences, beginning with "Near surface cover materials..." and ending with "... cover material itself."
Reason: The EPA standards for post-closure environmental protec-tion do not provide for, or characterize, the cover material in terms of
- radioactivity, but only in terms of durability and capacity to reduce radon release from the tailings. However, the EPA standard does indi-cate in a footnote that the characteristics of the cover material should be considered on a site-specific basis. The purpose of the NRC reouirn-ment was,, in the cresence of the requirement that radon from the tailings be less than 2 oCi/m 2 -s, to " .. ensure that surface radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover material itself."
Under the EPA standard, radon escaping from the tailings alone is likely to be significantly above background, thus nullifying the basis for the NRC reouf rement for cover materials free from elevated levels of radium.
(e) At the end of Criterion 6, add a new paragrapn to read: "The design requirements in this Criterion for longevity and control of radon releases shall apply to any portion of a licensed and/or disposal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pCf/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (11) 15 pCf/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface."
Reason: This change incorporates the EPA requirements for site cleanup outside the actual disposal area, in areas where the longevity and radon control closure standards are not applicable (see 40 CFR 192.32(b)(2) and 192.41).
15 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
- 7. Criterion 8.
(a) At the end of the first full paragraph, add a new sentence to
-. read "During operations and prior to closure, radiation coses from radon emissions from surface impoundments shall be kept as low as is practicable."
Reason: This change incorporates the EPA requirement imposed under 40 CFR 192.32(a)(4).
(b) Following the third full paragraph of Criterion 8, just before Criterion 8A, insert the following two new paragraphs:
" Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct mate-rial shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assur-ance that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other
! organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general environment."
" Uranium and thorium byproduct materials shall be managed so as to conform to the applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category:
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on January 1,1983."
Reason: These new paragraphs incorporate EPA requirements imposed under 40 CFR 192.41(d) and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3), respectively.
- 8. Criterion 10.
In the second sentence of the second paragraph, add the words "and control" immediately after the word " surveillance" in both places the word " surveillance" appears.
Reason: This change clarifies the need to establish financial arrangements consistent with any requirement for maintenance to main-tain isolation of tailings after closure. This change is necessary and consistent with the absence of a prohibition on reliance on maintenance to provide long-term isolation in 40 CFR 192.32(b).
- 9. Criterion 12.
Delete the first sentence which states that final disposition of tailings should be such that ongoing active maintenance is not necessary to preserve isolation.
16 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
Reason: The standard referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(b) for control of nonradiological hazards, 40 CFR 264.111, requires only that the need for maintenance be minimized; it does not exclude the possibility of limited reliance on maintenance following closure of a disposal site.
- 10. Criteria 2, 7, 9, and 11 are not affected by the new EPA standards and no modification is proposed for any portion of those criteria.
Imoact of the Proposed Amendments !
Compliance with Subparts 0 and E to 40 CFR Part 192 of EPA's regula-tions is an established requirement. Under Section 275d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission is obligated to implement and enforce the new EPA standards as of December 6, 1983, the date they became effective. This Commission responsibility is being carried out on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis in individual licensing actions.
The Commission's action in proposing these modifications to its regu-lations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is to conform them to the new EPA standards. These changes are for the purpose of avoiding conflicts and inconsistencies, and f-or clarify f ng previously existing language so as to be compatible with the new requirements. In most instances, the changes revise previous NRC requirements by deleting them or reducing their stringency or effect so as to make NRC's requirements compatible with EPA's. The action proposed here by the Commission is a consequence of orevious actions taken by the Congress and the EPA, and is legally mandated in Section 275b(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Commission action in this case is essentially nondiscretionary in nature, and for purposes of environmental analysis, rests upon existing environmental and other impact evaluations in the following documents:
(1) " Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 192),"
Volumes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September 1983, and (2) "Regula-tory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites," EPA 520/1-83-010 September 1983, both prepared in support of Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR Part 192, and (3) " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling," NUREG-0706, September l 1980, prepared in support of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. The Commission believes that these supporting analyses for the new EPA standards and the 17 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
existing Commission regulations provide a more than adequate environmental review for the standards addressed herein, and that no additional impact
.. analysis is warranted by the conforming actions proposed herein. The EPA engaged in and completed a reasoned decisionmaking process with full con-sideration of environmental concerns, and for the purposes of this rule-making action, can be viewed as the lead agency.
PAPERWORK REOUCTION ACT STATEMENT This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information 1 l collection requirement subject to the requirements of 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 nuncer 3150-0020.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant econcmic impact upon a substantial number of small '
entities. Therefore, we have not performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The basis for this finding is that of the licensed uranium mills, only one qualifies as a smal.1 entity. Almost all the mills are owned by large corporations. Three of the mills are partly-owned by companies that could qualify as small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration generic small entity definition of 500 employees.
However, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a small business is one that is independently owned and operated. Since these three mills are not independently owned they do not qualify as small entities.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 40 Government contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, and Uranium.
18 Enclosure A-1
(7590-01]
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy
Reorganization 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 proposing the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 40.
PART 40 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
- 1. The authority citation for Part 40 is revised to read as fo11ews:
I ' AUTHORITY: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat.
932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 83, 84, t
Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat.
688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amenced, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 275, 92 Stat.
3021, as amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 4'0.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273); SS 40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and SS 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (4),
40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 2. Appendix A to Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extrac-tion or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
Introduction. Every applicant for a license to possess and use source material in conjunction with uranium or thorium milling, or bypro-duct material at sites formerly associated with such milling, is required 19 Enclosure A-1
- 1. - -
[7590-01]
by the provisions of 5 40.31(h) to include in a license application pro-posed specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition
.. of tailings or wastes resulting from such milling activities. This appen-dix establishes technical, financial, ownership, and long-term site I surveillance criteria relating to the siting, operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of mills and tailings or waste systems and sites at which such mills and systems are located. As used in this appendix, the term "as low as is reasonably achievable" has the same mean-ing as in S 20.1(c) of 10 CFR Part 20 of this chapter.
In many cases, flexibility is provided in the criteria to allow achieving an optimum tailings disposal program on a site-specific basis.
i However, in such cases the objectives, technical alternatives and con-cerns which must be taken into account in developing a tailings program are identified. As provided by the provisions of 9 40.31(h) applica-tions for licenses must clearly demonstrate how the criteria have been addressed.
The specifications shall be developed considering the expected full capacity of tailings or waste systems and the lifetime of mill operations.
( Where later expansions of systems or operations may be likely (fo'r example,
- A where large quantities of ore now marginally uneconomical may be stock-piled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without degradation in long-term stability and other'perf orm-ance factors shall be evaluated.
I. Technical Criseria
- Criterion 1--In selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites, the following site features, which will determine the extent to which a program meets the broad objective of isolating the tailings and associated contaminants
. from man and the envircnment during operations and for 1,000 years there-after, shall be considered:
Remoteness from populated areas; Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and Isolation of contaminants from groundwater sources; and 1
Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term.
20 Enclosure A-1 T =
[7590-01]
The site selection process shall be an optimization to the maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features.
In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis shali be given to isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While isola-tion of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding consideration shall be given to siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards.
Tailings shall be disposed of in a manner that minimizes the degree to which active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
Criterion 2--To avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites and thereby reduce perpetual surveillance obligations, byproduct material !
from in situ extraction operations, such as residues from solution evapo-ration or contaminated control processes, and wastes from small remota above ground extraction operations shall be disposed of at existing large mill tailings disposal sites; unless, considering the nature of the wastes, such as their volume and specific activity, and the costs and environmental impacts of transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, such offsite disposal is demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantages of onsite burial clearly outweigh the benefits of reducing the perpetual surveillance obligations.
Criterion 3--The evaluation of alternative sites and disposal methods performed by mill operators in support of their proposed tailings disposal program (provided in applicants' environmental reports) shall reflect serious consideration .he below grade disposal mode. Where full below-grade burial is not pre .icable, the size of retention structures, and size and steepness of slopes of associated exposed embankments shall be minimized by excavation to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or appropriate given the geologic and hydrologic conditions at a site.
Criterion 4--To the extent necessary to meet the :losure require-ments in Criterion 6, the applicant or licensee shall adhere to the following site and design criteria:
(a) Upstream rainfall catchment areas must be sofficiently small !
to decrease erosion potential and the size of the flood which could erode 21 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
or wash out sections of the tailings disposal aret so as to provide reasonable assurance of meeting the longevity standard in Criterion 6.
(b) Embankment and cover sloces shall provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability.
(c) The following factors shall be considered in establishing any rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human and animal traffic or by natural processes, and to preclude undercutting and piping:
Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles; Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by' size; and Steepness of underlying slopes.
Areas tcward which surface runoff might be directed shall be well protected. In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment
- system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain shall be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.
(d) The impoundmert shall not be located near a capable fault that could cause a maximum credible earthquake larger than that which the
, impouncment could reasonably be expected to withstand. As used in this j criterion, the term " capable fault" has the same meaning as defined in 6 III(g) of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100. The term " maximum credible earthquake" means that earthquake which would cause the maximum v1bratory ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potential consider-l ing the regional and local geology and seismology and specific character-istics of local subsurface material.
(e) The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incor-I porate features which will promote deposition. For example, design features which promote deposition of sediment suspended in any runoff which flews into the impoundment area might be utilized; the object of such a design feature would be to enhance the thickness of cover over time.
Criterion 5--The following shall be considered:
Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic liners are used, a leakage detection system shall be installed immediately below the liner i
22 Enclosure A-1
--n. e -. ,-e- , . - - - a ~ . , - . , - - - , ,
[7590-01]
to ensure major failures are detected if they occur. This is in addition to the groundwater monitoring program conducted as provided in Criterion 7.
, Where clay liners are proposed or relatively thin, in-situ clay soils are to be relied upon for seepage control, tests shall be conducted with representative tailings solutions and clay materials to confirm that no significant deterioration of permeability or stability properties will occur with continuous exposure of clay to tailings solutions. Tests shall be run for a sufficient period of time to reveal any effects if they are going to occur (in some cases deterioration has been observed to occur rather rapidly after about nine months of exposure)).
Mill process designs which provide the maximum practicable recycle of solutions and conservation of water to reduce the net input of liquid to the tailings impoundment.
Dewatering of tailings by process devices ano/or in-situ drainage systems (At new sites, tailings shall be dewatered by a drainage system installed at the bottom of the impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head for seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a system. Where in-situ dewatering is to be con-ducted, the impouncment bottom shall be graded to assure that the drains are at a low point. The drains shall be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system shall also be adequately sized to assure good drainage).
Neutralization to promote immobilization of toxic substances.
Where groundwater impacts are occurring at an existing site due to seepage, action shall be taken to alleviate conditions that lead to excessive seepage impacts and restore groundwater quality. The specific seepage control and groundwater protection method, or combination of methods, to be used must be worked out on a site-specific basis. Tech-nical specifications shall be prepared to control installation of seepage control systems. A quality assurance, testing, and inspection program, which includes supervision by a qualified engineer or scientist, shall be established to assure the specifications are met.
In support of a tailings disposal system proposal, the applicant /
operator shall supply information concerning the following:
23 Enclosure A-1
i s
[7590-01]
The chemical and radioactive characteristics of the waste solutions.
The characteristics of the underlying soil and geologic forma-tions particularly as they will control transport of contaminants and solutions. This shall include detailed information concerning extent, thickness, uniformity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata.
Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of the various formations shall be determined.
This information shall be gathered from borings and field survey methods taken within the proposed impoundment area and in surrounding areas where contaminants might migrate to groundwater. The information gathered on boreholes shall include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient number and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant discontinuities, fractures, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic conductivity. If field survey methods are used, they should be in addition to and calibrated with borehole logging. Hydrologic param-eters such as permeability shall not be determined on the basis of labora-tory analysis of samples alone; a sufficient amount of field testing (e.g., pump tests) shall be conducted to assure actual field properties are adequately understood. Testing shall be conducted to allow estimat-i ing chesi-sorption attenuation properties of underlying soil and rock.
Location, extent, quality, capacity and current uses of any groundwater at and near the site.
Furtnermore, steps shall be taken during stockpiling of ore to mini-mize penetration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of are storage areas.
Criterion 6--In cases where waste byproduct material is to be perma-nently disposed, the waste disposal area shall be closed in accordance f with a design 1.for an earthen cover which shall provide reasonable assur-l ance of control of radiological hazards to (1) be effective for 1,000 years, -
/
'The standara applies to design. Monitoring for radon af ter installation of an appropriately designed cover is not required.
24 Enclosure A-1
, , [7590-01]
to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releasas of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmos-
'~
phere so as to not exceed an average 2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2 s). In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances shall not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer shall not be taken into account in determin'ng the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed, it .nust be demonstrated that such materials will not crack or degrade by dif ferential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term time intervals.
The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control
! of radon releases shall apply to any portion of a Ifcensed and/or dis-posal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than: (1) 5 pico-curies per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorit;m bypro-duct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of l thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers i l
more than 15 cm below the surface.
Cetterion 7--At least one full year prior to any major site construc-tion, a preoperational monitoring program shall be conducted to provide complete baseline data on a milling site and its environs. Throughout the construction and operating phases of the mill, an operational monitor-7 ing program shall be conducted to measure or evaluate compliance with
! 3This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least 1 year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials and from covering materials.
Radon vaissions from covering materials snould be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site. The standard, however, applies
- only to emissions from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere.
l 25 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
applicable standards and regulations; to evaluate performance of control systems and procedures; to evaluate environmental impacts of operation;
,. and to detect potential long-term effects.
Criterion 8--M111tng operations shall be conducted so that all air-borne effluent releases are reduced to levels as low as is reasonably achievable. The primary means of accomplishing this shall be by means of emission controls. Institutional controls, such as extending the site boundary and exclusion area, may be employed to ensure that offsite expo-sure limits are met, but only af ter all practicable measures have been taken to control emissions at the source. Notwithstanding the existence of individual dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary to assure that population exposures are reduced to the maximum extent reasonably achievable and to avoid site contamination. The greatest potential sources of offsite radiation exposure (aside from radon expo-sure) sre dusting from dry surfaces of the tailings disposal area not covered by tailings solution and emissions from yellowcake drying and packaging operations. During operations and 5.rior to closure, radiation j doses from radon emissions from surface impoundments of uranium or thorium byproduct materials shall be kept as low as is practicable.
Checks shall be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g.,
! differential pressures and scrubber water flow rates) which determine the efficiency of yellowcake stack emission control equipment operation.
It shall be determined wnether or not conditions are within a range pre-
- scribed to ensure that the equipment is operating consistently.near peak l
efficiency; corrective action shall be taken when performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices shall be operative at all times during drying and packaging operstions and whenever air is exhausting from the yellowcake stack. Drying and packaging operations shall terminate when controls are inoperative. When enecks indicate the equipment is not operating within the rsnge prescribed for peak effi-ciency, actions shall be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed i range. When this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying
! and packaging operations shall cease as soon as practicable. Operations
, may not be re-started af ter cessation due to of f-nermal performance until I
needed corrective actions have been identified and implemented. All such
, cessations, corrective actions, and re-starts shall be reported to the i
26 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
appropriate NRC regional . office as indicated in Criterion SA, in writing, within 10 days of the subsequent restart.
To control dusting from tailings, that portion not covered by stand-ing liquids shall be wetted or chemically stabilized to prevent or mini-mize blowing and dusting to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
This requirement may be relaxed if tailings are ef fectively sheltered from wind, such as may be the case where they are disposed of below grade and the tailings surface is not exposed to wind. Consideration shall be given in planning tailings disposal programs to methods which would allow phased covering and reclamation of tailings impoundments since this will help in controlling particulate and radon emissions during operation. To control dusting from diffuse sources, such as tailings and ore pads where automatic controls do not apply, operators shall develop written operat-
! ing procedures spect"ying the methods of control which will be utilized.
Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance i that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millfrems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millfrems to any other organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the j general environment.
Uranium and thorium byproduct materials shall be managed so as'to l conform to the appifcable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal i
Regulations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category:
l Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on January 1, 1983.
criterion 8A--Daily inspections of tailings or waste retention systems shall be conducted by a qualified engineer or scientist and documented.
The appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 20, or the Ofrector, Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, shall be immediately
, notified of any failure in a tallings or waste retention system which i results in a release of tailings or waste into unrestricted areas, and/or
] of any unusual conditions (cor.ditio.1s not contemplated in the design of
(
27 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
l l
the retention system) which if not corrected could indicate the poten-l tial or lead to failure of the system and result in a release of tail-l ,
ings or waste into unrestricted areas.
l II. Financial Criteria l
Criterion 9--Financial surety arrangements shall be established by
- each mill operator prior to the commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tail-ings or waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by such surety arrangements shall be based on Commission-approved cost estimates in a Commission-approved plan for (1) decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which would allow unre-stricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the reclamation of tailings and/or waste disposal areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in Section I of this Appendix. The licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction with an environmental report that addresses the expected environmental impacts of the milling operation, decommission-ing and tailings reclamation, and evaluates alternatives for mitigating these impacts. The surety sna11 also cover the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10. In estab-lishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates shall take into account total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the decommissioning and reclamation work.
j In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and expense, the Commission may accept financial sureties that have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other Federal or I state agencies and/or local governing bodies for such decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, and long-term site surveillance and control, provided such arrangements are considered adequate to satisfy these requirements and that the portion of the surety which covers the decom-missioning and reclamation of the mill, mill tailings site and associated areas, and the long-term funding charge is clearly identified and committed for use in accomplishing these activities. The Ilcansee's surety mech-anism will be reviewed annually by the Commission to assure that suffi-cient funds would be available for completion of the reclamation plan if 28 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
the work had to be performed by an independent contractor. The amount of surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting from infiation, changes _in engineering plans, activities per-formed, and any other conditions affecting costs. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased through the life of the operation or takes place at the end of operations, an appropriate pertion of surety liability shall
- be retained until final compliance with the reclamation plan is determined.
This will yield a surety that is at least sufficient at all times to cover the costs of decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are expected to be disturbed before the next license renewal. The term of the surety mechanism must be open ended, unless it can be demonstrated that another arrangement would provide an equivalent level of assurance. This assur-ance could be provided with a surety instrument which is written for a specified period of time (e.g. , 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the beneficiary (the Commission or the State regulatory agency) and the principal (the licensee) some reasonable time (e.g. , 90 days) prior to the renewal date of their intention not to renew. In such a situation the surety requirement still exists and the licensee would be required to submit an acceptable replacement surety within a brief period of time to allow at least 60 days for the regulatory agency to collect.
Proof of forfeiture must not be necessary to collect the surety so that in the event that the licensee could not provide an acceptable replace-1 ment surety within the required time, the surety shall be automatically collected prior to its expiration. The conditions described above would have to be clearly stated on any surety instrument which is not open ended, and must be agreed to by all parties. Financial surety arrangements
- generally acceptable to the Commission are
1 (a) Surety bonds; (b) Cash deposits; (c) Certificates of deposit; (d) Deposits of government securities; (e) Irrevocable letters or lines of credit; and (f) Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the Commission. However, self insurance, or any 29 Enclosure A-1
l (7590-01] ,
i I arrangement which essentially constitutes self insurance (e.g., a contract with a state or Federal agency), will not satisfy the surety requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already )
exists through license requirements. I r
Criterion 10--A minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance shall be paid by each mill operator 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.
If site surveillance or control requirements at a particular site are determined, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, to be signifi-cantly greater than those specified in Criterion 12 (e.g. , if fencing is determined to be necessary), variance in funding requirements may be speci-fied by the Commission. In any case, the total charge to cover the costs of long-term surveillance and control shall be such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveil-i lance and control. The total charge will be adjusted annually prior to actual payment to recognize inflation. The inflation rate to be used is 1
that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
III. Site and Byproduct Material Ownership
- Criterion 11--A. These criteria relating to ownership of tailings j
and their disposal sites become effective on November 8, 1981, and apply I to all licenses terminated, issued, or renewed after that date. ,
B. Any uranium or thorium milling license or tailings Itcense snali contain such terms and conditions as the Commission determines necessary to assure that prior to termination of the license, the licensee will comply with ownership requirements of this criterion for sites used for tailings disposal.
C. Title to the byprocuct material licensed uncer this Part and land, including any interests therein (other than land owned by the United States or by a State) which is used for the disposal of any such byproduct material, or is essential to ensure the long term stability of such disposal site, shall be transferred to the United States or the State in which such land is located, at the option of such State. In s .
30 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01] .
view of the fact that physical isolation must be the primary means of long-term control, and Government land ownership is a desirable supple-mentary measure, ownership of certain severable subsurface interests (for example, mineral rights) may be determined to be unnecessary to protect the public health and safety and the environment. In any case, however, the applicant / operator must demonstrate a serious effort to obtain such subsurface rights, and must, in the event that certain rights cannot be obtained, provide notification in local public land records of the fact that the land is being used for the disposal of radioactive material and is subject to either an NRC general or specific license prohibiting the disruption and disturbance of the tailings. In some rare cases, such as may occur with deep burial where no ongoing site surveillance will be required, surface land ownership transfer require-ments may be waived. For licenses issued before Nnvember 8,1981, the Commission may take into account the status of the ownership of such land, and interests therein, and the ability of a licensee to transfer title and custody thereof to the United States or a State.
D. If the Commission subsequent to title transfer determines that use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both, of the land transferred to the United States or to a State will not endanger the public health, safety, welfare, or environment, the Commission may permit the use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both, of such land in a manner consist-ent with the provisions provided in these criteria. If the Commission permits such use of such land, it will provide the person who transferred such land with the right of first refusal with respect to such use of such land.
E. Material and land transferred to the United States or a State in accordance with this Criterion shall be transferred without cost to the United States or a State other than administrative and legal costs incurred in carrying out such transfer.
F. The provisions of this Part respecting transfer of title and custody to land and tailings and wastes shall not apply in the case of lands held in trust by the United States for any Indian tribe or lands owned by such Indian tribe subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States. In the case of such lands which are used 31 Enc.losure A-1
(7590-01]
i for the disposal of byproduct material, as defined in this Part, the licensee shall enter into arrangements with the Commission as may be appropriate to assure the long-term surveillance of such lands by the United States.
IV. Long-Term Site Surveillance Criterion 12--As a minimum, annual site inspections shall be con-ducted by the government agency rettining ultimate custody of the site where tailings, or wastes are stored to confirm the integrity of the stabilized tailings or waste systems and to determine the need, if any, for maintenance and/or monitoring. Results of the inspection shall be reported to the Commission within 60 days following each inspection. The Commission may require more frequent site inspections if, on the basis of !
a site-specific evaluation, such a need appears necessary oue to the features of a particular tailings or waste disposal system.
Dated at Washington, DC, this day of , 1984.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
f Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
32 Enclosure A-1
[7590-01]
,_ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailing Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards 4
i AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 4 its regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The proposed rule changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations j to the regulations recently published by the Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of the environment from these wastes. This i action is necessary to comply with the legislative mandate set out in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization I Act for FY 1983.
l OATE: The comment period expires on (30 days after publication).
Comments received by the Commission after that date will not be considered.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
, Deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fonner, Of fice of the Executive Legal Director, telephone (301) 492-8692, or Dan E. Martin, Division of ;
Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4642.
I
- 1 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
, Commission) is proposing mudifications to its regulations for the purpose of conforming them to generally applicable requirements recently promul-gated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These new EPA requirements are contained in Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983), are applicable to the management of uranium and thorium byproduct material, and became effective for NRC and Agreement State licensees and ifcense applicants on December 6, 1983.
The action proposed herein would modify previously existing regulations of tha Commission to conform them to the new EPA requirements, and would incorporate certain of the new EPA requirements into the Commission's regulations. The affected Commission regulations are contained in Appen-dix A to 10 CFR Part 40, which was promulgated in final form on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65521).
The modifications to Commission regulations proposed herein will incorporate within NRC regulations some of the new EPA requirements. The action that the Commission will take with respect to the remainder of these new EPA requirements is the subject of an Advanced Notice of Pro-i .
posed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which requests comment on that subject, also issued this day. These new EPA requirements were developed and issued by EPA pursuant to section 275b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2022),
as added by Section 206 of Pub. L.95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Under Section 18(a) of Pub.
L.97-415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Commission is required to conform its requia-tions to EPA's by no later than March 31, 1984, with notice and oppor-tunity for public comment. Today's proposal furthers fulfillment of that responsibility. '
Previous Actions In keeping with Section 18(a) of the NRC Authorization Act, the Commission suspended portions of its October 3, 1980 mill tailings regu-lations af ter notice and opportunity for public comment (48 FR 35350; August 4, 1983). This suspension terminates automatically upon the earlier of (1) the conclusion of this conforming rulemaking, or (2) April 1,1984
+
I 2 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
Those portions of the Commission's regulations which are now suspended are those that were determined to be in conflict or inconsistent with EPA's proposed requirements. More specifically, the suspended portions are those that would require a major commitment or major action by licensees which would be unnecessary if (1) the EPA proposed standards were promulgated in final form without modification, and (2) the Commis-sion's regulations were modified to conform to the EPA standards. The l
objective of the suspension was to avoid a situation where a licensee or applicant might make a major commitment or take a major action which j would be unnecessary or ill-advised af ter this subsequent rulemaking to permanently modify the existing regulations on the basis of EPA's final
- standards.
l The final EPA standards are very similar to those that were proposed.
[Teere-is;-for-that-ressen;-s geod-desi-ef simiistity-between-the-changes
! te-6emmissien-regeistiens-effected-temporarify-ey-sespension-sne-these prepesed-teesy-to-ce-msee permanent-] Nevertheless, the Commission has
! reconsidered the appropriateness of [the-entirety-ef) changes to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 in light of the new EPA standards, and the need for additional succortinq documentation. [and] The changes proposed today l are much more modest than (are-not-fuliy-censistent with] the previod suspension. [Sifferences--except-fer-additiens--ste explicitiy-identified-Aff-sdditions are-eifferences since-nothing-was-seded-to-Appendix-A-in the-sescension-]
Scoce of This Proposal In addition to conforming its existing regulations to new EPA stan-dards, under the provisions of the UMTRCA, the Commission has a further l legislated responsibility; it must establisn general requirements, for the management of byproduct material, with EPA concurrence, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparaDie to requirements applicable to the management of similar hazardous material regulated by l the EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended. The Commission deliberated as to how best to deal with these related rule-making needs and decided on the course of action resulting in this pro-posal and the accompanying ANPRM. This proposal addresses all the changes (considered-sppropriate] to the existing Commission regulations in 3 Enclosure A-2 i
t
[7590-01]
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 that can be legally promulgated without addi-tional supporting documentation. Other changes to the Commission's regulations for mill tailings management resulting from the EPA standard are the subject of the accompanying ANPRM.
1 The content of these two rulemakings also may be characterized in terms of the need for EPA concurrence, although that was not the deciding factor. This proposal consists of modifications not requiring EPA con-currence, including conforming changes to existing NRC rules and incor-
, poration of EPA requirements not deriving from the SWDA. Those modifi-cations that are the subject of the ANPRM accompanying this proposal reautre EPA concurrence pursuant to section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Modifications addressed in the ANPRM include (1) incorporation into NRC regulations of SWDA requirements already imposed by the EPA, and (2) any furtr.er mocifications to NRC regulations necessary to establish SWDA-comparable requirements as called for by the UMTRCA. This course of action was chosen to allow the Commission to both conform its regulations to EPA's and incorporate non-SWOA provisions in a prompt and orderly manner, in accordance with the schedule set by Congress, and deal with the complex of SWDA requirements and issues in a separate, comprehensive and unified rulemaking.
- Content of This Proposal The new EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 192, (48 FR 45926) included by reference several sections from 40 CFR Part 264, promulgated by the EPA pursuant to authority provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which modified the SWOA. These SWDA (or RCRA) requirements imposed ur. der 40 CFR Part 192 are addressed in the ANPRM accompanying this proposal. The few conforming changes to NRC's exist-ing Appendix A regulations made necessary by these newly imposed SWJA requirements are addressed in this document, as are conforming changes and other changes necessary to reflect and incorporate the non-SWOA elements of EPA's new requirements. These non-SWOA provisions include requirements to--
(1) Adhere to applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 190, " Environ-mental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations" for i
l 4 Enclosure A-2 i
[7590-01]
uranium byproduct material, and essentially the same requirements for thorium byproduct material; (2) Adhere to applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category: Effluent Limitations Guide-lines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory."
(3) Maintain releases of radon to the atmosphere during operations as Icw as is practicable; (4) Close disposal areas so as to provide reasonable assurance of effective control for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years; (5) Limit average post-closure releases of radioactive radon gas to no more than 20 picoeuries per square meter per second (pCi/m 2 .s); and (6) Set limits for residual concentrations of radioactive radium left in soil, above background, in onsite areas not subject to the closure requirements for longevity and radon release control.
Proposed Modifications and Rationale In accordance with tPe above, the Commission proposes the following modifications to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40:
- 1. Introduction.
(a) In the second sentence of the third paragraph, change " amend-ability" to " amenability."
Reason: This change corrects a typographical error.
(b) Delete the fourth paragraph in its entirety.
Reason: This change deletes an information submittal requirement which was established in connection with implementation of the original Appendix A criteria. The due date originally set for submittals is past.
A new due date for revised submittals is not considered necessary.
{c} Licensees or applicants may propose alternatives to the specific requirements in this Appendix. Such alternative proposals may take into account local or regional conditions, including aeology, topography, hydrology, and meteorology. The Commission may find that the proposed alternatives meet the Commission's requirements if the alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, 5 Enclosure A-2 l
[7590-01]
and a level of protection for oublic health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, the extent oracticable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by the reouirements of this Accendix and the standards oromulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 192, Subcarts 0 and E.
Reason: The flexibility to propose alternatives to the Commission's and EPA standards was included in Pub. L.97-415 changes to the AEA. The added caragraoh oaraohrases the language in Section 84c. The added para-graoh explicitly acknowledges the legislative intent and orovides licensees and acolicants the cocortunity to prooose alternatives as a routine licens-inq matter. Licensees would have to Drovide site specific rational to enable the recuired Commission finding. This generic accroach was taken instead of modifying individual criteria to provide flexibility. A generie accroach avoids the chance of not identifying all areas where flexibility may be needed and oreserves the existing support for Accendix A. Admin-istratively, alternatives are easier to orocess under an explicit orovision than exceotions to rules.
- 2. Criterion 1.
(a) In the first paragraph delete the phrase [s] " .for thousands of years. " and [u-- witheet-engeing-setive-msintenance--- u] insert
.for 1.000 years..
Reason: The thousands of years language conflicts with the 40 CFR 192.32(b) standard of design of control measures to be effective for 1,000 years. [Ferther--sitheegn-40-EFR-264-111- wnien-is-inciedec,by-reference in-40-EFR-192-32(63--that-for-nentsdiesegiesi-na:sres-the-need-fer maintenance-be-minimited--the-EPA-standard-itseif-is-silent-en-maintenance fer-radielegical-hazard-centroi-measures-and-could-thus-sifew-seme-limited reliance-en-active-maintenance-for-fimited perieds-of-time---The-i-See year peried-in-the preferred-af ternative-f ar-exceeds-the-100 year p'eried-the-EPA views-ss-reasonabie-to-rely en-institutionai-centreis-te provice-setive maintenance---Sn-this-basis--the-Eemmission wenid-net-fiatiy prehibit--in sii-cases- pisnned-reiisnee-en-setive-maintenance-]
l l
6 Enclosure A-2 i t
. . 1
[7590-01]
(b) In the second listed item of the first paragraph, delete the word " usable."
Reason: Both 40 CFR 264.221 and 40 CFR 264.92, which are included by reference in 40 CFR 192.32(a), require isolation of contaminants from all qualities of groundwater, not just usable groundwater sources. l
[(c3-Medify-the-isst psrsgraph-reading; dTaifings-shafi-be-cispesed of-in-s-manner-that-no-setive-maintenance-is-required-to preserve-condi-tiens-of-the-site;d-to-resd.ufsilings-shafi-be-disposed-of-in-s-manner that-minimites-the-degree-to which-setive-maintenance-is-required-te preserve-conditions-of-the-site d Ressent--The-EPA-standards-in-40-EFR-Part-192-de-net prenibit-sii reiisnee-en-maintenance:--For-nonrsdiefogiesi-hsrards;-40-EFR-264:111 requires-tnat-the-need-for-maintenance siter-ciesure-be-minimized:--The change wenid-reduce-the stringency-of-the-NRE-requirement-se-as-to-be censistent-with-40-EFR-Part-192:
Neter--The-isst psrsgesch-of-Eriterien-i was previensiy-suspended in-fuii-]
- 3. Criterion 3.
[fs)-Seiete-in-its entirety-the-first-sentence wnich-reeds "The
' prime-eptien'-fer-disposai-of-tailings-is piseement-beiew grade;-either in-mines-er-speciaffy exesvated pits-fthat-is; where-the-need-for-eny speciaffy censtructee-retentien-structure-is eliminatee):u Ressen --The-sentence-has-no effeet-ether-than-te-facei-befew gtsde dispossi-as-the ' prime-option '--This-is-misiesding-and-confusing-in-that it gives-tne-impressien-that-above grsee-dispossi-cecid-not-be-spprovec:
Under-the-iongevity standard of-40-EFR-Part-192;-it-is-dersefiity-rsther thsn-eisposai-mode which-determines-seceptsbility; (b3--Medify-the-second sentence wnere-it-resds 8- censideration-of this-disposai-mece;u-te-reed.u- reensideration-of-the-eef ew grade-disposai mede u Ressent--The-change-is-of-an editoriai-nstate-to-replace-the preneen
'this' with 'the-eefew grader --Althougn-the-requirement-to-consider i
beiew grade-dispossi wes previcasiy-suspended-aie9g with-the-rest-of Eriterien-3;-s-requirement-for consideration enfy-is-net-ineensistent with-EPA's-40-EFR-?srt-192-snd-the-Eemmissien-believes-it-sheafd-remain-7 Enclosure A-2 l
l _- - . _ - -
[7590-01]
(c)--Beiete-the-third-and-fearth-sentences-in-their-entirety;-beginn-ing with.uin-seme-instances---- u.snd ending with "---ste-net-sysiisbier"
.. Reasen---The-sentences-are-explanstery-in-nstere--sne-ce-net preperly refiect-censiderstien-of-E?A's-new-requirements;-especisify-for greene-water protectient--Fer-this-reason-they-sre petentisily-misiesding-and confesing-td)--Beiete-the-isst sentence-baginning with "in-these-esses---- u and-ending with "---eresiensi-forces.u Ressent--The-sentence pisces-s generic-borden-of preef-requirement en-scove grade-disposai which-is-at-edds with-the-seceptability-stan-cards-estsefished-by-EPA's-requirement-fer-longevity-of-centrei-in-40-6FR 192-3E(b)-
(a) Delete the modifers "high ouality" for groundwater in the second sentence of the second caragraoh.
Reason: The EPA standards reouire protection of all qualities of groundwater, not iust hiah ouality sources.
[ Noter--The-entirety of-Eriterien-3 was previously-suspended.
4 Criterion 4.
[(s)-Revise-the-first sentence--in-its-entirety;-to-resd "To-the extent-necessary-to-meet-the-ciosure-requirements-in-Eriterien-6--the spplicsnt-et-iicensee shafi-schere-to-the-feffewing site-snd-cesign criteria:"
Ressen---The-revisien-ciarifies-thst-the remaineer-ef-Eriterien-4 spplies-enfy-te-the extent-necessary-to-schere-to-tne-Eriterien-6-ciesure standards- which-sre preposed-herein-to-reflect-the-new-EPA-standards-for fengevity-of-centrei-snd-raden-reiesse-fimitatiens ]
[(b)](a) Revise paragraph (a) by [ replacing.u minimizedu with u
sefficiently-smafi "] deleting " maximum possibie flood," and [edding-st the end u..
3a.33.te provide-ressenable-sssersnee-of-meeting-the longevity-standard-in-Eriterien-6:a] inserting " Probable Maximum Flood."
Reason: Probable Maximum Flood reflects the accrooriate hydrologic terms for a design basin and the original intent of the provision when Accendix A was oromulgated.
8 Enclosure A-2
l l
1
[7590-01]
[Ressent--The-changes-revise-and-clarify-the-restrictiens pisced-en upstream-estemment-sres-se-as-to-be-censistent with-the-EPA-fengevity l standsre-new-reflected-in preposed-Eriterien Nete:--Persgrsph-fs3 was previously-sespenced-in-its entirety-(c3--Beiete parsgrspn-fb3-in-its-entirety-Ressent--it-may-net-be-necessary-fer-tepegraphic-features-to provide i geed-wind protection-in-erder-to-meet-the-EPA-lengevity-standard---For j exampie--engintaring-metheds-fe g---rock-armering3-snecid-be seie-te previce-sufficient wind protection-to-meet-the-EPA-design-standard-of i-See years-of-ef fective-centrei-(d)--in-the-first sentence-ef parsgraph-(c3--delete-the phrase u- :be-reistively-fiat sfter-finai-stabiiicatien-to-minimice-erosien potentisi-snd-to-- "
Ressent--The-t-see year-cesign-fifetime-in-the-EPA-fengevity stan-dard-mignt-be-met-by-engineering-er-ether-metheds-rsther-than.ureistively fiatu. features; sne-it-msy-net-be-necessary-to uminimiccd eresien peten-tisi---it-may-be-seceptable-ender-the-EPA-standard--snd-mere pesetiesbie; te-sppiy-s reistively-mere-eresive-but-thicker-cover-(e)--Belete-the-remainder-of persgraph-fe)-beginning with.uThe-bread eejective-- "-snd ending witn u.--identified:u Ressent--The-eef eted-isnguage-is-misiesding-sne-st-ecds with-the EPA-fengevity-stancard---Under-the-EPA-requirement;-seceptseility-is-s fenetien-of-eversil-cersaility-rather-than-specific-design-festures-Aise--the-isngeage-is ennecessary-in view-ef-tne prepesee-retsinment-et eiements-of-Eriterien-3-requiring-that-steepness of-sienes-be-minimited to-the-maximem-extent-ressenably-schievabie-(f3--Refabel parsgrapn-fe)-as paragraph-fb3:
Reason:--Fer editorial-eensistency: )
(g3--Beiete-the-first-sentence-of persgrapn-fd)--eeginning "A-fali l l
self-sustaining vegetative : 8 and-ending u ::te-negligible-feveis " '
R e ss e nt -- Th e- fi rs t- s e n t e nc e- ma ndate s - s- re e k- o r- v e ge ta ti v e- c ov e r- t o reecce eresien---Further-language-eatiines pessible-exceptiens-but-the standard-is-estaelished-by-the-first-sentence---Whife-s-reek-eever-or vegetative-cover-is-s very-effective way-to-meet-the-EPA-standard;-it-msy l not-te-the-eniy way-to-meet-the-1000 year effective-design-ebjectiver 9 Enclosure A-2 l
l
1 l
[7590-01]
The-6emmissien-believes-that-this-and-simiist-isngesge-sheafe-be-cefeted so-ss-to provide-maximum-fiexibility-to-mifi-epersters-in-cevising pians
. to-meet-the-EPA-lengevity-standard-(h3--Belete-the-second-snd-third-sentences-of parsgrapn-fd)-ceginning with "Where-s-fulir 8-snd-ending with "- pile.u Ressen;--See-fd3-snc-(g3-above- 1 1
(i)--in-the-fourth-sentence-of-paragraph-(d)-beginning-"The-feifewing )
fseters:-- u.7,p33ee.the words.uthe-final"-in-the phrsse "- rin-estsefisn- I ing-tne-final-reek-cover: r .with u uany "
Ressent--See-(g3-abover--Rock-eevering-is-not-fiatiy-required:--The words uthe-finaiu.are-meaffied-to-eisrify-this-situation:
(j)--in-the-first-fisted-item-in paragraph-(d)--deiete-the paren-thetiesi phrsse "(excepting-bedding-msteriai-sversge particles-size-shall be-st-iesst-cebefe-size-or grester) "
Ressent--The phrase specifies-teennical-requirements-en-reek-size that-may-not-be-necessary-to-meet-the-EPA-design-ebjectiver--This-change wifi-sifew-fiexibility-to ese whatever-si:e-reek-meets-the-E?A-standard:
(k3--Sefete-in-its entirety-the-fearth parsgesph-of parsgesph-(d) beginning with.ugnej,4ee33 7eeg.ftsgments-shafi-- u-sne ending with u;. shafi-net-be-usee "
Ressent--The-feertn psrsgrapn specifies-teenniesi-requirements en reek preserties-that may-not-me-necessary-to-meet-the-EPA-design-cejee tive---The-enange-retains-fiexibility-to secept greater quantities-of lesser quality-reek--or-ether-designs-in-keeping with-the-E?A-f engevity stsnears-(43--Seiete-the-fifth psrsgraph-of persgraph-(d3-in-4ts entirety-beginning with.uReck-covering--.u-snd ending-with u...ef-this-Eriterien u Reasent--The-listing-of-requirements-needed-to-seppert-s-justifies-tion-for-not using-s-reek-cover-is-st edes with-the-form-of-the-EPA longevity-standard:
Noter--in-the-fifth persgraph-of psrsgraph-(d)--the-first phrsse
" Rock-eevering-of-siepes-may-not-be-required:- u was-not previcesiy suspended:
10 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
(m)--Belete-the-first-sentence-of-the-isst psrsgraph-of pers-graph-(d)-beginning "Ferthermere--afi-impeenementsrt u-snd-eneing u,;.33ep,. gradient 2 Ressent--While-centeering-to-minimi e-eeneentrated serisce-renoff er-sharp-enanges-in-fiew wili-enhance-leng-term-stabiiity--sech-centeer ing-to-totally-svoid prebiem-sress-may-not-be-required-in-sii-esses-by the-EPA-eesign-lifetime-standsed-of-1-800 yests-to-the-extent prseticabie and-296 years-in-any-esse-(nt--in-the-second-sentence-of-the-isst paragraph-ef psrsgespn-fd) ceiete.uin sedition-te-rock-cover-en-siepest.,u-snd.urr:with-s=estantisi reek-cover-frip-rsp3.u..Repisee usress-tewardu.with uAress-teward:u Ressen---See-(gt-seeve-(e)--Refabel parsgrspns-(d)--fe)--snd-(f)--ss-fe)--(d)--snd-fe)-
respectively-Ressent--Fer-eeiterisi-centistency-]
- 5. Criterion 5.
(a) In the first paragraoh, delete the first two sentences beginn-ing " Steps shall be taken..." and ending "... potential uses." and the phrase " ..in order to accomplish this objective." in the third sentence.
Reason: The EPA groundwater protection standards referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(a) do not permit any seepage to groundwater.
(b) In the first listed item under the first paragraph beginning with " Installation of. ." delete the words " low permeability" as a char-acteristic of bottom liners.
Reason: The EPA groundwater protection standard referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(a) requires a liner that prevents migration of wastes out of the impoundment into the adjacent soil and groundwater. Low permea-bility implies that some migration is allowed.
[ Noter--in-the-first-fisted-item-ender-the-first psrsgreen--the-isst two-feil-sentences--beginning with uWhere-eisy-liners-- d-snd-ending with u---months-of-exposere))tu.,,7,.p7,,4ea33 7.scspenced-]
11 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
l (c) In the second paragraph beginning "Where groundwater impacts..."
delete the phrase "to its potential use before milling operations began to the maximum extent practicable."
Reason: The EPA standard in 40 CFR 192.33, by referencing 40 CFR 264.100, requires a corrective action program to restore groundwater to standards established under 40 CFR 264.92-94. This standard is essen-tially a nondegradation standard. Restoration of groundwater quality only to the extent necessary to restore its potential use is inconsis-tent with the EPA standard.
(d) Delete in its entirety the third paragraph beginning "While the primary method of protecting ground water shall be isolation. ." and ending ". . . from current or potential uses."
Reason: The EPA standards for groundwater protection in 40 CFR 192.32(a) protect groundwater primarily on the basis of background-level concentration limits for hazardous constituents, and not in terms of current or potential uses. The deleted sentence allowed consideration of tailings in contact with groundwater. The EPA standard permits no seep-age to groundwater. -
(e) In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph beginning "This information shall be gathered..." delete the word " usable" where it modifies " groundwater."
Reason: The EPA standard in 10 CFR 192.32(a) does not distinguish between " usable" and nonusable aquifers. The groundwater protection standard applies universally to aquifers of any quality or potential use.
- 6. Criterion 6.
(a) Delete the first sentence in entirety, beginning with "Suffi-cient earth cover. .." and ending with ". . . meter per second.", and in its '
place insert "In cases where waste byproduct material is to be permanently disposed, at least three meters of earth cover shall be Dlaced over tail-ings or wastes at the end of milling operation. and the waste disposal area shall be closed in accordance with a design which shall provide 1
reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effec-tive for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct 12 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
materials, to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average 2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m:s)."
. Reason: The change replaces previous Commission requirements for
[minimem-cever-tnickness-snd] post-closure radon control with the EPA standards for longevity and radon control. [The-EPA-stsnesre-in-46-EFR 192-32(b)-for-environmentsi protection-after-efesore-dees-net-stipaiste-a minimum-cever--cat-rsther-s-iengevity-requirement-f or whatever-centrei-is applied-] The control method must [sise] provide reasonable assurance that releases of radon-222 do not exceed 20 picocuries per square meter per second, rather than 2 picocuries. [Under-the-EPA-stsnesrd-the-thickness ef-eever wili-ee-a-fenetien-of-fengevity-and-rsden-reiesse with-no set minimem-thickness-]
(b) Add to Criterion 6 the following two footnotes which accompany the revised first sentence: footnote (1) "The standard applies to design.
Monitoring for radon after installation of an appropriately designed cover is not required," and footnote (2) "This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least one year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon wil'1 come from both uranium byproduct mate-rials and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site.
The standard, however, applies only to emissions from byproduct materials to the atmosphere."
Reason: This change fully incorporates the EPA radon control standard.
[ Note---in-the-first-sentence-in-Eriterien-6--eniy-the werds dbut net-fess-than-three-metersu -snd ute-fess-than-two pieecuries per-square meter per-secondu were previensiy-suspendee-(c) In the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, replace "non-soiled" with "non-soil," [and-cefete-the weres dte-reduce-taiiings covers-to-less-than-three-meters "]
Reason: The change [s] corrects a typographical error. [and-delete-s reference-te-tne-three-meter-minimem-cover-thickness-requirement whien is-no-ionger-seprepriste-Note---in-the-fifth-sentence-of-the-first parsgraph--the words u...e73eg.e7...u.were previously-sespended-]
l 1
13 Enclosure A-2 1
- \
l I
[7590-01]
1 i
[(d)-Beiete-the-second-to-inst-and-isst-sentences--eeginning with "Near-surface cover-materisis-- u-snd ending with 8---cover materisi
- itseif "
Ressent--The-EPA-standards-for post-ciesure-envirenmentai protec-tien-co-not provide-fer--or-characterize--the cover-material-in-terms-of rsciesetivity--but-eniy-in-terms-of-darability-and-capacity-to-reduce rseen-reiease-frem-the-taiiings---Hewever--the-EPA-standsre-dees-inei-cate-in-s-feetnote-thst-the-characteristics-of-the-eever-materiai shouid be-censidered-en-a-site-specific-basis-]
[(e3]{d) At the end of Criterion 6, add a new paragraph to read:
"The design requirements in this Criterion for longevity and control of radon releases shall apply to any portion of a licensed and/or disposal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 pico-curies per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium bypro-duct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the su'rface, and (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averagea over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface."
Reason: This enange incorporates the EPA requirements for site cleanup outside the actual disposal area, in areas where the longevity and radon control closure standards are not applicable (see 40 CFR 192.32(b)(2) and 192.41).
- 7. Criterion 8.
(a) At the end of the first full paragraph, add a new sentence to read "During operations and prior to closure, radiation doses from radon emissions from surface impoundments shall be kept as low as is practicable."
Reason: This change incorporates the EPA requirement imposed under 40 CFR 192.32(a)(4).
(b) Following the third full paragraph of Criterion 8, just before Criterion 8A, insert the following two new paragraphs:
" Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct mate-rial shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assur-ance that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the 14 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
l whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any othee organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned
, discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general environment."
" Uranium and thorium byproduct materials shall be managed so as to conform to the applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category:
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on January 1,1983."
Reason: These new paragraphs incorporate EPA requirements imposed under 40 CFR 192.41(d) and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3), respectively.
[8---Eriterien-10:
in-the-second-sentence-of-the second paragrapn--add-the werds.u3ng centre 3u.immediately-after-the word usarveifianceu .4n.beth places-the were.uservei44anceu.3pp3373; Ressen;--Tnis-change-eiarifies-the-need-to-establish-financial arrangements-censistent with-any-requirement-for-maintenance-to-main-tain-iseistien-of-tailings-after-ciesere:--This-enange-is-necessary and censistent with-the-absence-of-a prehibitien-en-reliance-en-maintenance te previde-leng-term-isefatien-in-40-EFR-192-32(b3:
97---Erfterien-i2-Beiete-the-first-sentence which-states-that-finai-disposition-ef tailings-sheeld-ee-scen-that-engeing-setive-maintenance-is-net-necessary te preserve-isolatien-Ressent--The-standard-referenced-in-40-EFR-192-32(b3-for centrei-of nenradiefegicaf-hazards--40-EFR-264:lli--requires-eniy-that-the-need-fer maintenance-be-minimized--it-dees-net-exeinde-the-pessibility-of-fimited reliance-en-maintenance-feliewing-efesure-of-a-disposai-site-]
[10:] 8. Criteria 2, 7, 9, 10, [and] 11, and 12 are not affected by the new EPA standards or editorial changes and no modification is proposed for any portion of those criteria. i l
l l l I
l l
I 4
Enclosure A-2 15
[7590-01]
Impact of the Procosed Amendments Compliance with Subparts 0 and E to 40 CFR Part 192 of EPA's regula-tions is an established requirement. Under Section 275d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenced, the Commission is obligated to implement and enforce the new EPA standards as of December 6, 1983, the date they became effective. This Commission responsibility is being carried out on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis in individual licensing actions.
The Commission's action in proposing these modifications to its regu-lations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is to conform them to the new EPA standards. These changes are for the purpose of avoiding conflicts and inconsistencies, and for clarifying previously existing language so as to be compatible with the new requirements. [in-most-instances--the changes-revise previces-NRE-tequirements-by-deleting-them-er-reducing their-stringency-er-effect-se-ss-to-make-NRE's requirements-compatible with-EPA's-] The action proposed here by the Commission is a consequence of previous actions taken by the Congress and the EPA, and is legally mandated in Section 275b(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Commission action in this case is essentially nondiscretionary in nature, and for purposes of environmental analysis, rests upon existing environmental and other impact ' evaluations in the following documents:
(1) " Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 192),"
Volumes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September 1983, and (2) "Regula-tory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites," EPA 520/1-83-010, September 1983, both prepared in support of Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR Part 192, and (3) " Final Ceneric Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling," NUREG-0706, September 1980, prepared in support of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. The Commission i believes that these supporting analyses for the new EDA standards and the existing Commission regulations provide a more than adequate environmental review for the standards addressed herein, and that no additional impact analysis is warranted by the conforming actions proposed herein. The EPA engaged in and completed a reasoned decisionmaking process with full con-sideration of environmental concerns, and for the purposes of this rule-making action, can be viewed as the lead agency.
16 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT
. This proposed rule does not contain a ne ;r amended information collection requirement subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1380 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were apprcved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0020, i
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION As required by the Regulatory Fit xibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies taat this rule will not, if promulgateo, have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we have not performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The basis for this finding is that of the licensed uranium mills, only one qualifies as a small entity. Almost all the mills are owned by large corporations. Three of the mills are parti -owned f by companies that could qualify as small businesses, accordirg to the Small Business Administration generic small entity' definition of 500 employees'.
However, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a small business is one that is independent'y owned anc operated. Since these three mills are not independently owned they do not qualify as small entities.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 40 Government 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 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 proposing the following amendments to 10 CFR Pars 40.
17 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
PART 40 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL i
- 1. The authority citation for Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat.
932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs.11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat.
688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 275, 92 Stat.
3021, as amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec.122, l 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, '
68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273); SS 40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and SS 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (4),
40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued under sec.1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 2. Appendix A to Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
Accencix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extrac-tion or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content.
Introduction. Every applicant for a license to possess and use source material in conjunction with uranium or thorium milling, or bypro-duct material at sites formerly associated with such milling, is required by the provisions of S 40.31(h) to include in a license application pro-posed specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from such milling activities. This appen-dix establishes technical, financial, ownership, and long-term site 18 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
surveillance criteria relating to the siting, operation, decontamination, j decommissioning, and reclamation of mills and tailings or waste systems l .. and sites at which such mills and systems are located. As used in this appendix, the term "as low as is reasonably achievable" has the same mean-ing as in S 20.1(c) of 10 CFR Part 20 of this chapter.
In many cases, flexibility is provided in the criteria to allow achieving an optimum tailings disposal program on a site-specific basis.
I However, in such cases the objectives, technical alternatives and con-cerns which must be taken into account in developing a tailings program )
are identified. As provided by the provisions of 9 40.31(h) applica-J tions for licenses must clearly demonstrate how the criteria have been 1
addressed.
].
The specifications shall be developed considering the expected full capacity of tailings or waste systems and the lifetime of mill operations.
Where later expansions of systems or operations may be likely (for example, where large quantities of are now marginally uneconomical may be stock-j piled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased j capacities without degradation in long-term stability and other perform-ance factors shall be evaluate'. d Licensees or apolicants may propose alternatives to the scecific reoutrements in this Accendix. Such alternative orocosals may take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography,
- hydrology, and meterology. The Commission may find that the orocosed
, alternatives meet the Commission's rec;irements if the alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, the extent practicable, or more stringent than the :
level which would be achieved by the requirements of this Appendix and the t
.tandards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 192, f Subparts 0 and E.
I. Technical Criteria Criterion 1--In selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites, the following site features, which will determine the extent to which a program meets the '
i i
19 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01] 1 broad objective of isolating the tailings and associated contaminants from man and the environment [dering-operations-snd-theresiter] for 1,000 years, thereaf ter, without ongoing active maintenance shall be considered:
Remoteness from populated areas; Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants from groundwater sources; and Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term.
The site selection process shall be an optimization to the maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features.
In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis shall be given to isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While isola-tion of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding consideration shall be given to siting features given the long-term, nature of the tailings hazards.
Tailings shall be di~sposed of in a manner that [ minimizes-the degree-to wnich] no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
Criterion 2--To avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites and thereby reduce perpetual surveillance obligations, byproduct material from in situ extraction operations, such as residues from solution evapo-ration or contaminated control processes, and wastes from small remote abovr ground extraction operations shall be disposed of at existing large mill tailings disposal sites; unless, considering the nature of the wastes, such as their volume and specific activity, and the costs and environmental impacts of transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, such offsite disposal is demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantages of onsite burial clearly outweigh the benefits of reducing the perpetual surveillance obligations.
Criterion 3--[The evsf eatien of-siternative-sites-and-disposa+
metheds performed-ey-miif-epersters-in-seppert of-theft preposed-tai 44rgs dispesai program-(provided-in-appliesnts' environmentai-reports)-shah reflect seriens-censieerstien-of-the-befew grade-dispossi-mode---Where 20 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
feil-below grade-burisi-is-not prsetiesbie--the-sice-ef-retention-stree-tures--and-size-snd-steepness of siepes ef-ssseeisted-excesed-emeankments shafi-be-minimized-by-exestaticn-to-the-maximem-extent-ressenSDiy-seniev-abie-or-sppropriate given-the geefogic-snd-hydrologic-eeneitions-st-a-siter]
The "orime option" for discosal of tailings is olacemant below grade, either in mines or soecially excavated cits (that is, where the need for any specially constructed retention structure is eliminated).
The evaluation of alternative sites and discosal methods cerformed by mill ooerators in succort of their proposed tailings discosal orogram (provided in acolicants' environmental recorts) shall reflect serious consideration of this disposal mode. In some instances, below grade dis posal may not be the most environmentally sound accroach, such as might be the case if a groundwater formation is relatively close to the surface or not very well isolated by overlying soils and rock. Also, geologic and tocograohic conditions might make full below grade burial imoractic able: for examole, bedrock may be sufficiently near the surface that blasting would be reouired to excavate a discosal Dit at excessive cost, and more suitable alternative sites are not available. Where full below grade burial is not cracticable. the size of retention structures, and size and steeoness of sloces of associated exoosed emoankments shall be minimized by excavation to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or acorooriate given the geologic and hydrologic conditions at a site. In these cases. it must be demonstrated that an above grade disposal orogram will orovide reasonably eouivalent isolation of the tailings from natural erosional forces.
Criterion 4 *-Te-the-extent-necessary-to-meet-tne-ciesare-requirements in-Eriterien-6--the-appHeant-er-Heensee snaH-achere-to-the-foHewing site-and-design-criteria (s)--Upstresm-esinfsH-estehment-aress-mast-be-safficiently smaH to-decrease-erosion petentiai-snd-the-size-of-the-ficed whien-could erede er wash-eat-sections-of-the-tsiHngs-disposai-sres-se-ss-to provide ressenabie-sssursnee-of-meeting-the-fengevity-standard-in-Eriterien-6:
(b3--Emeanxment-snd-cover siepes snaH previce-censervative-fseters of- s a f ety- s s s er4 mg-i e ng- t e rm- s tab H i ty f ,$0hg ; 06cs* n 0Y Se c ons es.] b C N& on 4 *n c.o y o e Feuf , 4ke new n r.s . v. was l. subef.'h.6/.
s . ,.p21, Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
(c3--The-feilewing-fseters-shafi-be-eensidered-in-estsefishing-sny reek-eever-design-to-sveid-dispistement of-reek particles-by-neman-and
, animal-traffic-er-by-nstersi processes--sne-to precinde-encercetting-snd piping:
---Snape;-si:e;-cempesition--and grsdatien-of-reek particles;
---Rock-eever-thickness-and-:ening-ef particles-by si:e--sne
---Steepness-of eneerlying-siepes:
Aress-tewarc-which-surfsee-renoff-might-be-directed-shsii-be welf protected:--in-adeition-to previding-for-stability-of-the-imecendment system-itself--eversii-stseiiity;-erosion potentisi--snd geemorpheiegy of serreending-terrsin smsfi-be-essiested-to-sssere-that-there-sre-not engeing-et petentisi-precesses;-sech-ss guily eresien; wnie.h weeld-fesd to-impeendment-instability; (d)--The-impeendment sha+4-not-be-feested-nese-s-esesbie-fanit-that eccie-esuse-s msximum-crecicie earthqcske-istger-than-that wnich-the impeenement-cecie-ressenseiy-be expected-to withstand:--As-esed-in-this criterien;-the-term desesefe-fseitu.hss-the-same-mesning-ss-defined-in S-ifffg)-of-Appeneix-A-of-10-EFR-Part-100---The-term.umaximem-credibie d
esrthetske -means-tnst estthqeske which weefd-esese-the-maximem vibratery greene-metien-bssee-epen sn evalestien-of esethqcske petentisi censider-ing-the-regiensi-sne-f eesi geoiegy snc-seismeiegy-snd-specific enstseter-isties-ef-feesf sebserface-msterisir (ei--The-impeonement; wnere-fessibie--snecid-ce-eesigned-te-ineer-perste-features wnich will premote-depesition:-vFer-exampie;-cesign festures wnich premote-deposition-of-seeiment-sespeneec-in-sny-reneff weien-fiews-inte-the-impeonement-sres-mignt-be-etifi:ed--the-ebject ef sech s-cesign-festere wenid-be-to-enhance-the-thickness-of-cever-ever time The followinc site and design criteria shall be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disoosed of above or below grade.
(a) Uostream rainfall catchment areas must be minimized to decrease erosion potential and the size of the Probable Maximum Flood which could erode or wash out sections of the tailings discosal area.
(b) Tocographic features should orovide good wind protection.
22 Enclosure A-2
' [7590-01]
i
, (c) Embankment and cover slopes shall be relatively flat af ter final stabilization to minimize erosion ootential and to provide conser-vative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objec-tive should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disoosed of t
below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 hori-zontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should j not be steeoer than about Sh:1v. Where steeoer slopes are orocosed, !
l reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:lv would be inpracticable should i 4 be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such 4 slopes acceptable should be identified.
(d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover shall be established j or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible '
) levels.
Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid i
regions, rock cover shall be employed on slopes of the impoundment *ys- ,
~ '
tem. The NRC will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely i gentle slopes such as those which may~ exist on the top of the oile.
- l The following factors shall be considered in establishing the final i rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human and :
i l,
animal traffic or oy natural process, and to oreclude undercutting and
- piping
{
shape, size, compositinn, and gradation of rock carticles j (excepting bedding material average particles size sna11 be at least
{ cobble size or greater);
i rock cover thickness and Zoning of particles by size; and 1
a steepness of underlying slopes.
i Individual rock fragments shall be dense, sound, and resistant to
} abrasion, and shall be free from cracks, seams, and other defects that i would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water and frost t
actions. Weak, friable, or laminated aggregate shall not be used.
Rock covering of slopes may not be required where top covers are 1 very thick (on the order of 10m or greater); impoundment slopes sre very gentle (on the order of 10 h:1v or less); bulk cover materials have inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and, there is j
23 Enclosure A-2
{
[7590-01]
1
- negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the oile and good wind j I
protection as described in coints (a) and (b) of this Criterion.
Furthermore, all imooundment surfaces shall be contoured to avoid .
3 areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharo changes in sloce gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward which ,
, surface runoff might be directed shall be well protected with substantial j_ rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain shall be evaluated to assure that
{ there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.
(e) The impoundment shall not be locateu near a caoable fault that could cause a maximum credible earthquake larger than that which the imooundment could reasonably be expected to withstand. As used in this criterion, the term " capable fault" has the same meaning as defined in 6 III(g) of Accendix A of 10 CFR 100. The term " maximum credible earth-i quake" means that earthquake which would cause the maximum vibratory j ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthouake potential consider-ing the regional and local geology and seismology and specific character-istics of local subsurface material.
(f) The imcoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incorporate features which will promote deposition. For example, design features which
{
i promote deposition of sediment suspended in any runoff which flows into the impounament area mient be utilized; the object of such a design feature would be to enhance the thickness of cover over time.
- Criterion 5--The following shall be considered
Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic liners are used, a
- leakage detection system shall be installed immediately below the liner to ensure major failures are detected if they occur. This is in addition to the grounawater monitoring program conducted as provided in Criterion 7.
Where clay liners are proposed or relatively thin, in situ clay soils are to be relied upon for seepage control, tests shall be conducted with representative tailings' solutions and clay materials to confirm that no significant deterioration of permeability or stability properties will occur with continuou. exposure of clay to tailings solutions. Tests shall be run for a sufficient period of time to reveal any effects if 24 Enclosure A-2 1
i
[7590-01]
they are going to occur (in some cases deterioration has been observed to occur rather rapidly after about nine months of exposure)).
Mill process designs which provide the maximum practicable recycle of solutions and conservation of water to reduce the net input of liquid to the tailings impoundment.
Dewatering of tailings by process devices and/or in-situ drainage systems (At new sites, tailings shall be dewatered by a drainage system installed at the bottom of the impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head for seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a system. Where in-situ dewatering is to be con-i ducted, the impoundment bottom shall be graded to assure that the drains are at a low point. The drains shall be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system shall also be adequately sized to assure good drainage).
Neutralization to promote immobi'ization of toxic substances.
Where grouncwater impacts are occurring at an existing site due to seepage, action shall be taken to alleviate conditions that lead to excessive seepage impacts and restore groundwater quality. The specific seepage control and groundwater protection method, or combination of methods, to be used must be worked out on a site-specific basis. Tech-nical specifications shall be prepared to control installation of seepage control systems. A quality assurance, testing, and inspection program, which includes supervision by a qualified engineer or scientist, shall be established to assure the specifications are met.
In support of a tailings disposal system proposal, the applicant /
operator shall supply information concerning the following:
The chemical and radioactive characteristics of the waste solutions.
The characteristics of the underlying soil and geologic forma-tions particularly as they will control transport of contaminants and solutions. This shall include detailed information concerning extent, thickness, uniformity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata.
Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of the various formations shall be determined.
l l
25 Enclosure A-2 l
[7590-01]
This information shall be gathered from borings and field survey methods taken within the proposed impoundment area and in surrounding areas where contaminants might migrate to groundwater. The information gathered on boreholes shall include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient number and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant discontinuities, fracturas, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic conductivity. If field survey methods are used, they should be in addition to and calibrated with borehole logging. Hydrologic param-eters such as permeability shall not be determined on the basis of labora-tory analysis of samples alone; a sufficient amount of field testing (e.g., pump tests) shall be conducted to assure actual field properties are adequately understood. Testing shall be conducted to allow estimat-ing chemi sorption atteruation properties of underlying soil and rock.
Location, extent, quality, capacity and current uses of any grcundwater at and near the site.
Furthermore, steps shall be taken during stockpiling of ore to mini-mize penetration of radioquclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of ore storage areas.
Criterion 6--In cases where waste byproduct material is to be perma-nently disposed at least three meters of earth cover shall be Olaced over tailings or wastes at the end of milling ooerations and, the waste disposal area shall be closed in accordance with a design wnich shall provide 1
reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effec-tive for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and raden-220 from thorium byproduct mater-ials, to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average 2 release rate of
'The standard applies to design. Monitoring for radon after installation of an appropriately designed cover is not required.
2This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least 1 year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials and from covering materials.
Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissions from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere.
26 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2 s). In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances shall not be considered.
Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer shall not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level.
If non-soil materials are proposed to reduce tailings covers to less than three meters, it must be demonstrated that such materials will not degride by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term time intervals.
Near surface cover materials (i.e., within the top three meters) shall not include waste or rock that contains elevated levels of radium; soils used for near surface cover must be essentially the same, as far as radioactivity is concerned, as that of surrounding surface soils. This
, is to ensure that surface radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover material itself.
The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases shall apply to any portion of a licensed and/or dis-posal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 pico-curies per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium bypro-duct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15,pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface.
Criterion 7--At least one full year prior to any major site construc-tion, a preoperational monitoring program shall be conducted to provide complete baseline data on a milling site and its environs. Throughout the construction and operating phases of the mill, an operational monitor-ing program shall be conducted to measure or evaluate compliance with applicable standards and regulations; to evaluate performance of control systems and procedures; to evaluate environmental impacts of operation; and to detect potential long-term effects.
27 Enclosure A-2 -
[7590-01]
Criterion 8--Milling operations shall be conducted so that all air-borne effluent releases are reduced to levels as low as is reasonably
, . achievable. The primary means of accomplishing this shall be by means of emission controls. Institutional controls, such as extending the site boundary and exclusion area, may be employed to ensure that offsite expo-sure limits are met, but only after all practicable measures have been taken to control emissions at the source. Notwithstanding the existence of individual dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary to assure that population exposures are reduced to the maximum extent reasonably achievable and to avoid site contamination. The greatest potential sources of offsite radiation exposure (aside from radon expo-sure) are dusting from dry surfaces of the tailings disposal area not covered by tailings solution and emissions from yellowcake drying and packaging operations. During operations and prior to closure, radiation doses from radon emissions from surface impoundments of uranium or 4
thorium byproduct materials shall be kept as low as is practicable.
Checks shall be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g.,
differential pressures and scrubber water flow rates) which determine the efficiency of yellowcake stack emission control equipment operation.
It shall be determined whether or not conditions are within a range pre-scribed to ensure that the equipment is operating consistently near peak efficiency; corrective action shall be taken wnen performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices shall be operative at all times during drying and packaging operations and whenever air is exhau' sting from the yellowcake stack. Orying and packaging operations shall terminate when controls are inoperative. When checks indicate the equipment is not operating within the range prescribed for peak effi-ciency, actions shall be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed j
range. When this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying i
and packaging operations shall cease as soon as practicable. Operations may not be re-started af ter cessation due to of f-normal performance until needed corrective actions have been identified and implemented. All such cessations, corrective actions, and re-starts shall be reported to the appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in Criterion 8A, in writing, within 10 days of the subsequent restart.
28 -
Enclosure A-2 s - , --
--a- ---r,-~r --,a n r y 9 ,, -
[7590-01]
To control dusting from tailings, that portion not covered by stand-ing liquids shall be wetted or chemically stabilized to prevent or mini-
.. mize blowing and dusting to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
This requirement may be relaxed if tailings are effectively sheltered from wind, such as may be the case where they are disposed of below grade and the tailings surface is not exposed to wind. Consideration shall be given in planning tailings disposal programs to methods which would allow phased covering and reclamation of tailings impoundments since this will help in controlling particulate and radon emissions during operation. To control dusting from diffuse sources, such as tailings and ore pads where automatic controls do not apply, operators shall develop written operat-ing procedures specifying the methods of control which will be utilized.
Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general environment.
Uranium and thorium byproduct materials shall be managed so as to conform to the applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category:
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as_ codified on January 1, 1983.
Criterion 8A--Daily inspections of tailings or waste retention systems shall be conducted by a qualified engineer or scientist and documented.
The appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 20, or the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, shall be immediately notified of any failure in a tailings or waste retention system which results in a release of tailings or waste into unrestricted areas, and/or of any unusual conditions (conditions not contemplated in the design of the retention system) which if not corrected could indicate the poten-29 Enclosure A-2
. (7590-01]
tial or lead to failure of the system and result in a release of tail-ings or waste into unrestricted areas.
II. Financial Criteria Criterion 9--Financial surety arrangements shall be established by each mill operator prior to the commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tail-ings or waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by such surety arrangements shall be based on Commission-approved cost estimates in a Commission-approved plan for (1) decontamination and oecommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which would allow unre-stricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the reclamation of tailings and/or waste disposal areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in Section I of this Appendix. The licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction with an environmental report that addresses the expected environmental impacts of the milling operation, decommission-ing and tailings reclamation, and evaluates alternatives for mitigating these impacts. The surety shall also cover the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10. In estab-lishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates shall take into account total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the decommissioning and reclamation work.
In order to avoic unnecessary duplication and expense, the Commission may accept financial sureties that have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other Federal or state agencies and/or local governing bodies for such decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, and long-term site surveillance and control, provided such arrangements are considered adequate to satisfy these requirements and that the portion of the surety which covers the decom-missioning and reclamation of the mill, mill tailings site and associated areas, and the long-term funding charge is clearly identified and committed for use in accomplishing these activities. The licensee's surety mech-anism will be reviewed annually by the Commission to assure that suffi-cient funds would be available for completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by an independent contractor. The amount of 30 Enclosure A-2
l
[7590-01] l surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting from inflation, changes in engineering plans, activities per-formed, and any other conditions affecting costs. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased through the life of the operation or takes place at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of surety liability shall be retained until final compliance with the reclamation plan is determined.
This will yield a surety that is at least sufficient at all times to cover the costs of decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are expected to be disturbed before the next license renewal. The term of the surety mechanism must be open ended, unless it can be demonstrated that another arrangement would provide an equivalent level of assurance. This assur-ance could be provided with a surety instrument which is written for a specified period of time (e.g. , 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the beneficiary (the Commission or the State regulatory agency) and the principal (the licensee) some reasonable time (e.g. , 90 days) prior to the renewal date of their intention not to renew. In such a situation the surety requirement still exists and the licensee would be required to submit an acceptable replacement surety within a brief period of time to allow at least 60 days for the regulatory agency to collect.
Proof of forfeiture must not be necessary to collect the surety so that in the event that the licensee could not provide an acceptable replace-ment surety within the required time, the surety shall be automatically collected prior to its expiration. The conditions described above would have to be clearly stated on any surety instrument which is not open-ended, and must be agreed to by all parties. Financial surety arrangements generally acceptable to the Commission are:
(a) Surety bonds; (b) Cash deposits; (c) Certificates of deposit; (d) Deposits of government securities; (e) Irrevocable letters or lines of credit; and (f) Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the Commission. However, self insurance, or any arrangement which essentially constitutes self insurance (e.g., a contract 31 Enclosure A-2
. [7590-01]
with a state or Federal agency), will not satisfy the surety requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already exists through license requirements.
Criterion 10--A minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance shall be paid by each mill operator 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.
If site surveillance or control requirements at a particular site are determined, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, to be signifi-cantly greater than those specified in Criterion 12 (e.g. , if fencing is determined to be necessary), variance in funding requirements may be speci-fied by the Commission. In any case, the total charge to cover the costs of long-term surveillance [ane-centrei] shall be such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveil-lance [ sed-centrol]. The total charge will be adjusted annually prior to actual payment to recognize inflation. The inflation rate to be used is that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by ,the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
III. Site and Byproduct Material Ownership Criterion 11--A. These criteria relating to ownership of tailings and their disposal sites become effective on Novemcer 8, 1981, and apply to all licenses terminated, issued, or renewed after that date.
B. Any uranium or thorium milling license or tailings license shall contain such terms and conditions as the Commission determines necessary to assure that prior to termination of the license, the licensee will comply with ownership requirements of this criterion for sites used for tailings disposal.
C. Title to the byproduct material licensed under this Part and land, including any interests therein (other than land owned by the United States or by a State) which is used for the disposal of any such byproduct material, or is essential to ensure the long term stability of such disposal site, shall be transferred to the United States or the State in which such land is located, at the option of such State. In view of the fact.that physical isolation must be the primary means of 32 Enclosure A-2
[7590-01]
long-term control, and Government land ownership is a desirable supple-mentary measure, ownership of certain severable subsurface interests
.. (for example, mineral rights) may ue determined to be unnecessary to protect the public health and safety and the environment. In any case, however, the applicant / operator must demonstrate a serious effort to
- obtain such subsurface rights, and must, in the event that certain rights cannot be obtained, provide notification in local public land records of the fact that the land is being used for the disposal of radioactive material and is subject to either an NRC general or specific license prohibiting the disruption and disturbance of the tailings. In some rare cases, such as may occur with deep burial where no ongoing site surveillance will be required, surface land ownership transfer require-ments may be waived. For licenses issued before November 8, 1981, the Commission may take into account the status of the ownership of such land, and interests therein, and the ability of a licensee to transfer title and custody thereof to the United States or a State.
D. If the Commission subsequent to title transfer determines that use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both, of the land transferred to the United States or to a State will not endanger the public hcalth, safety, welfara, or environment, the Commission may permit the use of the surface or suosurface estates, or both, of such land in a manner consist-ent with the provisions provided in these criteria. If the Commission permits such use of such land, it will provide the person who transferred such land with the right of first refusal with respect to such use of such land.
E. Material and land transferred to the United States or a State in accordance with this Criterior shall be transferred without cost to the United States or a State other than administrative and legal costs incurred in carrying out such transfer.
F. The provisions of this Part respecting transfer of title and custody to land and tailings and wastes shall not apply in the case of lands held in trust by the United States for any Indian tribe or lands owned by such Indian tribe subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States. In the case of such lands which are used for the disposal of byproduct .naterial, as defined in this Par., the 33 Enclosure A-2
. [7590-01]
licensee shall enter into arrangements with the Commission as may be appropriate to assure the long-term surveillance of such lands by the United States.
IV. Long-Term Site Surveillarce Criterion 12--The final disposition of tailings or wastes at milling sites should be such that ongoing active maintenance is not necessary to preserve isolation. o As a minimum, annual site inspections shall be con-ducted by the government agency retaining ultimate custody of the site where tailings, or wastes are stored to confirm the integrity of the stabilized tailings or waste systems and to determine the need, if any, for maintenance and/or monitoring. Results of the inspection shall be reportedtotheCommissionwithind0'daysfollowingeachinspection. The Commission may require more frequent site inspections if, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, such a. need appears necessary due to the featuresofaparticulartailings,dEwastedisposalsystem.
Dated at Washington, DC, this day of , 1984.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
o ,
Samuel J. Chilk,l Secretary of tSe Commission.
4
\
l r ! >
l
- i. l l
. l
' j 34 Enclosure A-2 i
s 1
$