ML20212B529

Forwards Shell of Crr Based Upon Recently Completed Final Completion Review Rept for Remedial Action at Shiprock U Mill Tailings Site,Shiprock,Nm & Summary of This Standardized Format

ML20212B529
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/04/1991
From:	Surmeier J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Randy Hall NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20212B513	List: IA-99-322, Forwards Shell of Crr Based Upon Recently Completed Final Completion Review Rept for Remedial Action at Shiprock U Mill Tailings Site,Shiprock,Nm & Summary of This Standardized Format ML20212B506 ML20212B529
References
FOIA-99-322 NUDOCS 9909200135
Download: ML20212B529 (21)

Text

. . . . . . .

4 isst MEMORANDUM FOR: Ramon E. Hall, Director Uranium Recovery Field Office FROM: John J. Surmeier, Chief -

Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low. Level Waste Management and Decomissioning,, HM5" suhJECT: STA!F.*,RD FORMAT FOR COMPLETION REVIEW REPORT (CRR) inclosed is a shell of a CRR based upon the recently completed " Final Completion Rwriew Report for the Remedial Action at the Shiprock Uranium Mill f allings Site St Shiprock, New Mexico " and a sumary of this standardized format. This standard format should be used 45 guidance for preparation of the Lakeview and Tuba City CRRs (URF0 in. house casework) and all future 'RRs. Use of this format, with the boilerplate, should ensure a consistent, tim .

effective product for CRRs produced by both Uranium Recovery Field Office and Headquarters, An IBM %20 document entitled, "Shell Completion Review Report," has been developed to further reduce. secretarial time as well as ensure consistency.

Ihts IBM document will be transmitted to URF0 this week. A brief discussion on using the Shet t Completton Review Report document is presented in Enclosure 3.

The shiprock CRR, dated May 9, 1991, should be of assistance in providing a perspective in those areas not covered in the shell CRR. If you have any questtons please call either Dan Gillen (492 0517) or Allan Mullins (492 0578) of ny staff.

ORIGNAL SIGNED BY John J. Surmeier, Chief 9909200135 990917 Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low. Level Waste Management

{MEPF@- 322 PM and Decomissioning, NM55 fnclosures:

1, Standard format for NRC's Completion Review Report 7, IBM %20 Shell Completion Review Report

1. Procedurcs for using IBM $520 Shell cc: 8,L , Bangart, LLWD A.W. Reach, Region IV AHullins NHSS r/f LLUR r/f Distribution: Central Filef PLohaus JGreeves DGillen J$urmeier JAustin RBangart PDR ft5 NO Y CaAegory: Proprietary _ or CF Only 1

)'-

Atint Yt5 NO ~K ,J.

SUBJECT ABSTRACT: STANDARD FORMAT FOR COMPLETION REVIEW REPORT (CRR

• > J,

. s. ,

y-OGLU

LLI n.........

............MR.......................4.g.....

LLUR fl / .

NAMI:AMullins/eb :DGl11en :J5u#ne1er

>rt ........................................................................ .....

DAf t : (,/ $1/91 :6/4/91  ![,/Al/91 n . , rr m .

!0l

. .. -.,rn,,v

t4 m ananssuam mmmm m a sta mawanaminane m a - - s - -

f .

i STANDARD FORMAT FOR COMPLETION REVIEW REPORT i

The Completion Review Report (CRR) is divided inta an introduction, four sect'ons, and three appendices. This format should be closely followed with oil., the changes noted. -

Introduction. Change site:name and references, otherwise, use as written.

Section 1.1- (HTRCA- Use as written.

Section 1.2- Concurrence Process for the Selection, etc.- Change site "me and references, otherwise, use as written. '

Section 1,3- Concurrence Process for the Performance, etc.- Use as written. -  ?

Section 1.4- The Site- Use th'e ger,eral format but alter as appropriate for tiie specific site.

Section 1.5- CRR Organization- Change site names, otherwise, use <1s written.

Section 2.0. Analysti o' 00E Remedial Action Performance- Follow the preferred format and alter for 5;'ecif1C site characteristics and 4 5 se s smer.t s .

Section is given.3.0- Sumary-Otherwise l'hange (open siteexist istues name,)and presentuse as written a sumary if concurrence of the issues needing resolution.

Sectton 4.0- References Peferences listed shouId bo those used in the review process ard those cited in the document.

Appendis A NRC Site Visits. All site visits and inspections should be listed following the format in the example.

Appendia B- Detailed comparison- This is very site specific. All of the PAP features shown may not be applicat,le for every site and some RAP features may nnt be identified which would be needed in addition to those shown , The categories shown under each RAP feature should be addressed as needed and appropriate for the site being discussed. Additional site-specific categories may be added as needed to complete the deteiled r.omparison and verification of the remedial activities.

Appendia C. UMTRCA, the EPA standards and the Phased UMTRA Project- Use as wr itten.

The intent of this standard format is to reduce the amount of time and effort spent in producing a CRR and to make them relatively consistent.

ENCLOSURE 1

\

FINAL COMPLETION REVIEW REPORT FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION AT THE ,

[**NAME OF SITE **] URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITE

[** LOCATION OF SITES *] l

["Date of Issu "]

DMslon of Im !avel Waste Management and Decommissioning U.S. Nuclear Regulatery Commission ENCLOSURE 2

4

- n TABLE OF CONTENTS

[**NAMEOFSITE**]CompletionReviewReport

(

Page i

!NTRODUCTION ......................................,,,,,,............,,,,,,, 1

1.0 BACKGROUND

............................................................ I 1.1 UMTRCA ........................................................... I 1.2 Concurrence Process for the Selection of DOE's Remedial Actions ..

1.3 Concurrence Process for the Performance of DOE's Remedial Actions. 2 1.4 The[**NAMEOFSITE**] Site.........../.......................... 2 1.5 Completion Rev iew Report (CRR) 0rganizatf on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[*

• 2.0 ANALYSI S OF DOE REMEDI AL ACTION PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[*

• 2.1 P r e v i o u s A c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F'**

2.2 Review of Remedial Action Performance ............................

2.2.1 Geotechnical Engineering Review Results ...................'**

2.2.2 Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection Review Results .................................................'** '**

2.2.3 Radiation Protection Review Results ......................

[**OTHERSUBSECTIONSASREQUIRE0,E.G., GROUNDWATER **]...........L'**

3.0

4.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A - NRC Site Visits to the [**NAME OF SITE **] UMTRA Project Site APPENDIX B - Detailed Comparison of Design Specifications with Completed RemedialActionsPerformedatthe(**NAMEOFSITE**]UMTRA Project Site APPENDIX C - UMTRCA, the EPA Standards, and the Phased UMTRA Project I

l

., g

[** CAP HAME OF SITE"] COMPLETION REV..IEW REPORT p }

INTRODUCTION 4 a

The [**NAME OF SITE **] site is.one of the 24 abandoned uranium mill tailings sites to be remediated by the Department of Energy (D0E) under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). UMTRCA requires, pursuant to Section 104(f)(1), that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concur with the DOE's determination that the remedial action has been; properly completed. This Completion Review Report (CRR)' documents the NRC staff's basis for its concurrence decision with respect to DOE's Certification Report for the completion of the ["NAME OF SITE **] site [**(CITE OF 00E COMPLETION l REPORTS)"). l w ,

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 UMTRCA )

Title I of UMTRCA provides for' remedial action at abandoned uranium mill tailings sites and associated vicinity properties. The purpose of this legislation is to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the radioactive materials at these sites. r UMTRCA directs DOE to select a'nd perform remedial actions at 24 abandoned uranium mill tailings sites to ensure compliance with'the general environmental standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) under Section 275(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by UMTRCA, UMTRCA also requires DOE to obtain NRC's concurrence with DOE's selection and performance of the remedial actions. Following completion of the remedial actions, UMTRCA authorizes NRC to license the long-term custody, maintenance, and monitoring of the disposal sites to ensure continued protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Appendix C includes a more detailed discussion of this legislation.

1.2 Concurrence Process for the Selection of DOE's Remedial Actions i To document its selection of the remedial action to be implemented at a particular site, DOE deveSps and issues a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP describes the series of activities and presents the design proposed by DOE to stabilize the residual radioactive materials at the disposal site and to provide for the long-term protection of the public and the environment. In accordance with UMTRCA Section 108(a)(1), the NRC staff reviews and concurs with the RAP, l and any subsequent modifications. By its review and concurrence in the remedia actiwn selection, the NRC staff concludes that the planned remedial actions will comply with EPA's applicable standards in 40 CFR 192, Subparts A, B, and C. The basis for the NRC staff's concurrence in DOE's selection of remedial action at the ["NAME OF SITE"] site is documented in a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) issued in ("DATE OF TER AND CITATION").

1 spemmt

I T . . . . . .

1.3 Ccncurrence Process for the Performan g of DOE's Remedial Actions The remedial action worn is performed by DOE contractors under Federal procurement regulations. During construction, DOE inspects and documents activities in accordance with the UMTRA Project Quality Assurance Plan, the Remedial Action Inspection Plan (RA!P), and the RAP. In addition, the NRC staff conducts independent inspections during construction.

tipor the completion of the remedial action, DOE compiles construction records and prepares a completion report to document that remedial actions were performed in accordance with the RAP or RAP modifications, and the RAIP. dased on this information, DOE certifies that all provisions of the RAP have been satisfied and, therefore, that the remedial actions comply with the applicable EPA standards in 40 CFR 192. Based on its review of DOE's documentation, and on its site visits and observations, NRC makes a concureence decision with regard to DOE's remedial action completion determination for the sites, and then jocuments the basis for this concurrence decision in the CRR. By its review and concurrence in the remedial action performance, the NRC staff concludes that the remedial action has been complettd in accordance with the concurred-in design.

NRC's concurrence with DOE's completion determination fulfills the Commission's responsibility under UMTRCA Section 104(f)(1) to concur with DOE's determination ,

of completion of remedial. action.

l.4 [" CAP NAME OF SITE"] [** SITE i The ["NAME OF SITE"] uranium mill tailings site is located ... The site consists of about acres, of which were covered by the uranium mill tailings prior to remedial action. The site ...- million tons of The remedial action performed by DOE consisted of the following major activities:

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  ;

xxxxi l 1

2. xxxxxxxxxxxx; and l

x. ...

The NRC was not involved with the actual remedial action activities, which were performed by the DOE contractors. However, DOE obtained NRC concurrence with the site construction design and significant modifications thereof. NRC also 2

4 performed site inspections to monitor the progress of the construction activity (see Appendix A).

1.5 Completion Review Report (CRR) Oroanization '

The purpose of this CRR is to document the NRC staff review of DOE's ["NAME OF SITE"] Certication Report.i'Section 2 of this report presents the analysis of .

remedial action construction'. This section is organized by technical discipline and addresses geotechnial engineering, surface water hydrology, and radiation protection aspects of the renedial action. Appendix A provides a listing of all NRC staf f visits to and inspections of the [**NAMEy0F SITE"J site. Appendix B provides a table that crossi-checks the requirements of the RAP /RAIP as concurred in by the NRC staff with DOE's Certification Report documentation. Appendix C presents a detailed description of the requirements;of UMTRCA and the resulting pnased process of the UMTRA Project.

2.0 ANALYSIS OF DOE REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMANCE j 2.1 Previous Actioy '-

The NRC staff, based on itstreview of the RAP and RAP modifications, concurred that the remedial action as. designed would meet the applicable EPA standards.

This concurrence was based on tec.hnical findings that there is reasonable assurance that the selection!of the remedial action would meet the standards for long-ter:n stability, radon attenuation, water resources protection and cleanup uf contaminated land and buildings. Staff reviews: included assessments in the areas of health physics and radiation protection, geotechnical engineering, surface water hydrology. ground-water hydrology, and geology. The NRC gave ["

CONDITIONAL **) concurrence'with the RAP on [" DATE ", CITATION "]. ...["

CONDITIONS "] [" RAP mods **] ... NRC staff also reviewed and concurred with DOE's Remedial Action Inspection Plan (Rev ") on [" 0 ATE "]. This concurrence was the NRC staff's agreement that the quality control program, i.e., the plan for testing and inspections, was acceptable for the [" NAME OF SITE"] site, 2.2 Review of Remedial Action Performance The NRC staff's primary objective in reviewing DOE's certification of remedial action completion is to determine whether the remedial actions have been '

performed in a manner consistent with specifications provided in the RAP, RAP modifications, and the RAIP, and if not, that deviations to these specifications do not significantly affect compliance with the EPA standard. In support of this action, the NRC staff participated in site inspections (See Appendix A),

field observations, assessments of c9 site data and records, and review of DOE Site Audit Reports. The following stctions present the results of the review of remedial action performance by individual technical discipline. Note that for the ["NAME OF SITE"] remedial action completion review, the pertinent technical disciplines are 1) ......, and x) .... [" IF APPLICABLE --

Groundwater resources protection is not addressed at this time, since DOE has elected to postpone any troundwater remedial action activities to a separate phase of the project. ", ,

y l

- a 2.2.1 Geotechnical Engineering Review Results i e

During its review, the NRC staff noted the following:

1. xxxx xxxx xxxx. .,

ti t,

2. xxxx xxxx xxxx.  ;

X. xxxx xxxx. ,

y Details of the staff's geotechnical engineering review, which provide the basis for the above conclusions, are included in the attached Appendix 8. Based on the above conclusions, and on the results of on-site inspections performed by l NRC staff during construction, the NRC staff concludes that the geotechnical engineering aspects of the construction were performed in accordance with the design and specifications identified in the RAP,iRAP modi ications, and RAIP.

2.2.2 Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Prote'ction Review Results NRC staff reviewed the surface water hydrology and erosion protection aspects of remedial actions at ["NAME OF SITE **] to ensure that they were constructed in accordance with the applicable construction specifications as stipulated in the RAP / design, RAP modifications, and RAIP. Areas of review included as-built drawings, construction operations, laboratory and field testing, and quality assurance audits. in addition, the review was based on NRC observations of the remedial actions and reviews of records and testing during NRC onsite inspections (See Appendix.A).

ti

.... During its review, the NRC staff noted the following:

... 7 i

Based on NRC staff observ'ations and review of onsite records during the remedial actions, as well as assessment of the verification results presented in the DOE Completion Report, the NRC staff concludes that the required durability and gradation tests were performed during the remedial action. The riprap is of adequate quality and has been acceptably placed. The NRC staff concurs that remedial action has been adequately completed at [**NAME OF SITE"] with respect to crosion protection.

2.2.3 Radiation Protection Review Results ,

The NRC staff reviewed radiation protection aspects of remedial actions at

["NAME OF SITE"] to ensure that cleanup of residual radioactive materials was performed in accordance with specifications in the RAP and RAP modifications, RA!P, and the final design. Areas of review included contaminated material excavation, verification of cleanup, laboratory and field testing, and quality assurance audits. Specific discussion of the details of this review can be found in Appendix B. The review was based on NRC staff assessment of the verification results presented in the DOE Completion Report. in addition, NRC ,

geotechnical engineering staff reviewed the design and construction of the disposal cell cover to ensure compliance with the RAP design for limiting radon l releases, and thus with the EPA standards (See,Section 2.2.1).

.S.

1 l

n

~ - -

W q

., .i The criteria for site cleanu

- the NRC staff [" CITATION")p were established in the RAP and concurred in byThe and waterborne contamination on adjacent lands to levels complying with the applicable EPA standards (40 CFR Part 192.12). ..T i

During its review of the radiation protection aspects of the remedial action completion documentation, the NRC staff noted thatsthe techniques, which DOE states to have used for verify;ng radiological cleanup at the proce,ssing site, complied with DOE's summary' protocols and the Vicinity Property Management and Implementation Manual (VPMIM) procedures, with which NRC concurred in June 1987.

In addition, DOE's radiological survey records support compliance with EPA's cleanup standards in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 192.

s i t ,

3.0 SUMriARY The NRC st ff reviewed geotechnical engineering, surface water hydrology, and radiation protection aspects of the remedial action performed at the uranium mill tailings site in (**NAME OF SITE"). The purpose of this review was to determine whether 00E had performed remedial actions at the site in accordance j with specifications in the RAP, RAP modifications, and other supporting project

! documents, and thus with the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A-C.

Based on its review of the Certification Report and on observations during periodic site inspections, the NRC staff concurs that DOE has performed remedial

action at the [**NAME OF SITE **] site in accordance with the above

' specifications and that this action complies with EPA's standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Sub) arts A-C. remedial actions are complete for the :"NAME OF SITE With **]

thesite.excep[**tion of ....

IF APPLICABLE -- DOE has proposed deferral of selection and performance of a groundwater cleanup program at this time, and plans to handle this as part of a separate UMTRA groundwater restorationprogram.**] The NRC staff considers DOE's deferral to be acceptable, and therefore, hereby concurs in completion of the ["NAME OF SITE"] remedial action ["lF APPLICABLE -- (other:than groundwater restoration). "]

f 6-

~

~

)

8 4.0 ktFERENCES

[" EXAMPLE OF FORMAT **]

00E (U.S. Department of Energy), 1985a, " Remedial' Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings .

Site at Shiprock, New M6'xico," June 1985. ]

00E, 1985b, " RAP Modification No. 1, Remedial Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings ,

Site at Shiprock, New Mexico," October 1985. 1 00E, 1986a, " RAP Modification No. 2, Remedial Action Plan and Site l' Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Shiprock, New Mexico," February 1986.

I DOE, 1988, Arthur, J.W. letter to Lohaus, P.H., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission, transmitting " Evaluation of As-Constructed Riprap for Shiprock, New Mexico Site," December 5, 1988.

MK-Ferguson, 1986, "UMTRA Project - Shiprock, New Mexico, Remedial Action inspection Plan," August 8, 1986.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission),1985, Higginbotham, L.B. letter to Themelis, J.G., U.S. Department of Energy, providing conditional concurrence on the RAP, June 6, 1985.

l 1,

1 4

I l

APPENDIX A:

NRC SITE VISITS TO THE l

[** CAP NAME OF SITE **) UMTRA PROJECT SITE 1

l

)

4 i, ,

m .

Appendix A NRC Site Visits to the

[**NAME OF SITE **] UMTRA Project Site

[**EXAMPLEOFFORMAT**]

DATE STAFF / DISCIPLINE PURPOSE 6/26/64 0. Gillen/geotechnical eng Pre-construction disposal T. Johnson / surf hydrology-erosion site and borrow site visit R. Pennifill/proj management 10/16/84 F. Ross/ groundwater hydrology Site visit to resolve gw M. Weber / groundwater hydrology characterization issues M. Knapp/ management 5/9/85 'J. Valdes/ geology Part of a multiple site K. Westbrook/ geology tour; obcervation of

- M. Larson/ groundwater hydrology initial construction

. D. Gillen/geotechnical eng-pm activities T. Johnson / surf hydrology-erosion B. Jagannath/geotechnical eng

5. Smykowski/geotechnical eng M. Haisfield/proj management P. Justus/ management A-1

i- .

l l

)

l 5

APPENDIX B:

DETAILED COMPARISON OF DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS WITH COMPLETED REMEDIAL ACTIONS PERFORMED AT

[" CAP NAME OF SITE **] UMTRA PROJECT SITE l

I i

i i

i

1 4

>r t

[" EXAMPLE OF FORMAT"]

APPENDIX B VERFICATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ACTIVITIES R Site: ["Name of Site"]

RAP Feature: ["Name of Feature (p.x of N"]

Reviewer (s): ["Name( s )"]

RAP Requirement Determination

a. Configuration (1) Floor of pit will be leveled The bottom of the pit was I and proof rolled and all visually verified to be free ,

tailings material or scft of uranium mill tailings -

spots resmoved (RAIP 6.2.1). (Comp. Rept. Vol. 1, !!!.0, Foundation' elevation will be Soil Measurement Methods 5020' (RAP Vol.!!, Desi Sect.,p.1). I Orawing SPK-PS-10-0107)gn

{ .

I

b. Material '

i (1) Gradation-particle size not Verified during gradation tests greater than lift thickness (Comp. Rept. Vol.3, App.E, (RAP Vol.!!, 022000-2.1 E.3). Foundation Fill Sect., p.2).

c. Placement (1) Lift thickness-not to exceed 12" Continuous monitoring was performed (RAP Vol.II, 022000-2.1 E.3). to ensure that lift thickness did notexceed12"(Comp.Rept.Vol.3, App.E. Foundation Fill Sect., p.2).

(2) Compaction-floor of pit will be Average compaction achieved was proof rolled-minimum of 90% of 95% (Comp. sept. Vol.3, App.E.

maximum as per ASTM 0698 (RAP Foundation Fill Sect., p.1).

Vol.1,p.55).

(3) Organic distribution-no visible NOT ADDRESSED IN DOE's COMPLETION organic matter within tailings REPORT. See Section 2.2.1 of embankment footprint (RAP Vol.!!, CRR.  !

02200V-2.1 E.2).

I B-1

- __ _ ______-__ __________-________a

VERFICATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ACTIVITIES Site: ["Name of Site **) Reviewer (s): ["Name( s )")

RAP Feature: ["Name of Feature (p.x of N'*]

RAP Requirement Determination

d. xxxxxxxxxxxxx (1) xxxxx xx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxoxxxxxxhxxxixxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx i i l

l l

B-2

l 1

1

)

i APPENDIX C:

UMTRCA, Tur EPA STANDARDS, AND THE PHASED UMTRA PROJECT 1

l I

l 6

APPENDIX C UMTRCA, THE ETA STANDARDS, AND THE PHASED UMTRA PROJECT

' tle I o' UMTRCA defi es the statutory authority and roles of the DOE, the knC, and the EPA with regard to the remedial action program for inactive uranium mill tailings sites.

i, ,

The Standards r' 1

UMTRCA charged the EPA with the responsibility for promulgating remedial action standards for inactive uranium mill sites. The purpose of these standards is to protect the public h'ealth and safety and the environment from radiological .

and non-radiological hazards associated with radioactive materials at the f sites. UMTRCA required that EPP promulgate these standards t,y no later than .

{

October 1, 1982. Af" r Octobar 1, 1982, if the EPA had not promulgated .

standards in final f orm, DOE v', to comply with the standards proposed by EPA under Title I of IRCA until such time as the EPA had promulgated its standards in fina l form. ]

The final EPA standards were promulgated with an effective date of March 7, 1983 (48 FR 602; January 5,1983); See 40 CFR Part 192 - Standards for Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites, Subparts A, B, and C. These i regulations may be summarized as follows:

1. The disposal site shall be designed to control the tailings and other residual radioactive materials for up to 1000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years

[40CFR192.02(a)].

2. Provide reasonable assurance that the disposal site design shall prevent radon,-222 from residual radioactive material to the atmosphere from exceeding 20 picocuries per square meter per second or from increasing the annual average concentration of radion-222 in air at or above any location outside the disposal site by more than one-halfpicocurieperliter[40CFR192.02(b)].

3. The remedial action shall be conducted 50 as to provide reasonable assurance that, as e result of residual radioactive materials from any designated processing site, the concentrations of radium-226 in land averaged over any area of 100 square meters shall not exceed the background level by more than 5 picocuries/ gram averaged over the first 15 centimeters of soil below the surface and 15 picocuries/ gram averaged over any 15 centimeters more than 15 centimeters below the surface [40CFR192.12(a)].

The portion of the EPA standards dealing with ground water requirements, 40 CFR 192.20(a)(2)-(3) were remanded by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 3, 1985. Based on this court decision, EPA was directed to promulgate new grounowater standards. EPA proposed these standards in the form of revisions to Subparts A-C of 40 CFR Part 192 in September, 1987, and now is in the process of completing action to promulgate the final groundwater standards.

C-1

. . $t e

?

a h As mandated by Section 108(a)(3) of UMTRCA, however, the remedial action at the inactive uranium processing sites, is to comply with EPA's proposed standards until such time as the final standards are promulgated. DOE continues to perform remedial action at the inactive processing sites in accordance with i NRC's concurrence with the remedial action approach based on the proposed EPA ,

groundwater standards (52 FR'36000; September 24,1987). Delaying i implementation of the remedial action program would be inconsistent with l Congress' intent of timely completion of the program. Modifications of  !

disposal sites after completion of the remedial action to comply with EPA's final ground water prctection standards may be unne'cessarily complicated and expensive and may not yield l commensurate benefits in terms of human and environmentalprotection.TKerefore,theCommission.believesthatsiteswhere remedial action has been essentially completed prior to EPA's promulgation of final ground water standards.will not be impacted tiy the final ground water standards. Although additio'nal effort may be appropriate to assess and clean up contaminated ground water at these sites, the existing designs of the disposal sites should be considered sufficient to provide long-term protection against future ground water contamination. NRC does not view UMTRCA as requiring the reopening of those sites that have been substantially completed when NRC concurred with the' selection of remedial action in accordance with applicableEPAstandards,pr'oposedorotherwisein(placeatthetimesuchNRC concurrence was given.

DOE Selection (Design) Phase )

.d a i For each site, UMTRCA requir's e that DOE select a plan of remedial action that l will satisfy the EPA standards and other applicable laws and regulations, and l with which the NRC will concur. For each site, this phase includes preparation j by DOE of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The Remedial Action Plan is structured to provide a comprehensive understanding of the remedial actions proposed at that site and contains specific design and construction requirements. To complete 3 the first phase, NRC and the appropriate State or: Indian tribe review the RAP l and then concur that the RAP will meet the EPA standards. j 1 i The Performance (Construction) Phase 6 In this phase the actual remedial action (which includes decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation) at the site is done in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan. The NRC and the State / Indian tribe, as applicable, must concur in any changes to the concurred-in plan that arise during construction.

At the completion of remedial action activities at the site, NRC concurs in DOE's determination that the activities at the site have been completed in

accordance with the approved plan, priortolicensing(thenextphase), title to the disposed tailings and contaminated materials must be teansferred to the United States and the land upon which they are disposed of mus? be in Federal custody to provide for long-term Federal control. Disposal sitea on Indian land will remain in the beneficial ownership of the Indian tribe.

NRC concurrence in the DOE determination that remedial action at a processing site has been accomplished in accordance with the approved plan may be accomplished in two steps where residual radioactive material is not being moved from the processing site to a different disposal site. The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 allows for a two step approach

, for Title I disposal sites. The Amendments Act will allow DOE to do all i

I C-2

4 w '

4 lI m ,

H s remedial actions, other thanoground water restoration, for the first step of closure and licensing. The second step, which can go on for many years, will deal with existing ground water restoration. When ground water restoration is completed, the Long-Term Surveillance Plan required under the licensing phase will be appropriately amendedi For sites that are being moved, licersing will occur in one step. There is^po ground water restoration at the disposal site and the processing site willinot be licensed after completion of remedial action. s (1 j, The Licensing Phase  ? M E k l Title I of UMTRCA further re' quires that, upon completion of the remedial action program by DOE, the permanent' disposal sites be cared for by the DOE or other Federal agency designated by, the President, under aplicense issued by the  !

Comission. DOE will receive a general license under 10 CFR Part 40.27 i following (1) NRC concurrence in the DOE determination that the disposal site has been properly reclaimed and (2) the formal receipt by HRC of an acceptable Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP). NRC concurrence with DOE's performance of the remedial action indicates that 00E has demonstrated that the remedial action complies with the provisions of the EPA standards in 40 CFR part 192, Subparts A, B, and C. This NRC concurrence may be completed in two steps as discussed above. There is no termination date for the general license.

Public involvement has been and will continue to bel'provided through DOE's overall remedial action program for Title I sites. ,The local public will have an opportunity to coment on?the remedial action ort closure plans proposed and implemented by DOE and to raise concerns regarding fiinal stabilization and the degree of protection achieve.d. NRC fully endorses State / Indian tribe and public input in all stages o,f:the program, especial!1y in the planning stages of remedial action when such inp'ut can be most effective in identifying and resolving issues affecting long-term care. At the time the LTSP is submitted, the NRC will consider the need for a public meeting' in response to requests and public concerns. Therefore, NRC encourages State /In'dian tribe and public participation early in the re' medial action and closure process and will provide additional opportunities, as needed, later in the process.

The Surveillance and Monitoring Phase in this phase DOE and NRC periodically inspect the disposal site to ensure its integrity. TheLong-TermSurveillancePlan(LTSP)willrequiretheDOEtomake repairs, if needed. j

- One of the requirements in the EPA standards is that control of the tailings should be designed to be effective for up to 1000 years without active ,

maintenance. Although the design of the stabilized pile is such that reliance I on active maintenance should be minimized or eliminated, the NRC license will require emergency repairs as+ necessary, in the event that significant repairs are necessary,.a determination will be made on a site specific basis regarding the need for additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions, and I health and safety considerations from.10 CFR Parts,19, 20, and 21.

~ .

C-3  :

e ,

- e:

• . . d. [-

i ., .

a p

c. i,

't le ilBM5520PROCEDURESF0kUSING <

}

THES{(LLCOMPLETIONREVIEWgEPORT(CRR)

The IBM 5520 document entitled, "Shell Completion Review Report," is available )

for use in preparing CRR's. It is a " read anly", document that can be j duplicated (i.e, request " DUP") for creating the site specific CPR. j All t,ite specific names,'Ereferences, etc. have been identified with a designator "["" followed by another designator:"**)". The IBM

" Global / Search /Re lace" menu can be used to change such generic designators as

[**HAME OF SITE" or [" CAP NAME OF SITE"] to'the specific site name and ,

location throughout the document. The IBM " FIND" function (press CODE + X) can beusedtolocatealloccurrencesof"[**"wherewordsorphraseswillneedto be changed.

The body of the CRR and each Appendix has been designated with "page format changes" (i.e., request "PFC") in the IBM 5520 system. This will permit the secretary to insert new material into the duplicated 5520 document and still be able to keep page numbers in sequential order. Figures or other inserts may be  !

added (or deleted) for page numbering purposes by inserting (or deleting) blank pages as illustrated on page 3 of the shell CRR. The use of " required page endings" (i.e., request ALT + 3) for such blank pages will assist in the pagination of the document.

It is suggested that. the ~ secretary use the "IPN" request (i.e., interactive pagination) prior to printing the completed document in order to ensure that the pages are properly formatted.

4 9

4

,l '

1 of

)

1 t

j

..s ENCLOSURE 3

,-- e NRC Form 8-C (4-79)

~ NRCM 0240

. COVER SHEET FOR CORRESPONDENCE Use this Cover Sheet to Protect Originals of Multi-Page Correspondence.

'/J

?

e

. 4 i)