ML20214R704
| ML20214R704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1986 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Themelis J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8612080063 | |
| Download: ML20214R704 (4) | |
Text
'
WM Rccord File W M Pro het 2 9 Docket No.
j [0" '
0 i 1
$ DV WM39/WM60/GNG/86/j5/J8 m - ,
, ri_ ,
i
~
(Petudo3I1,l523JS3)
John G. Themelis, Project Manager Distribution:
Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office WM39 r/f, WM604/f?
U.S. Department of Energy WMLU r/f RE Browning Albuquerque Operations Office MJ Bell MR Knapp P.O. Box 5400 DE Martin GN Gnugnoli O ^ibuquerque, New Mexico 87115 DM Giilen DM Soilenberser R Fonner, ELD
Dear Mr. Themelis:
EF Hawkins, URF0 In response to your April 16, 1986 inquiry regarding the feasibility of disposal of UMTRA Project waste at NRC-licensed commercial milling sites, the NRC legal staff has prepared an evaluation of each of the five issues raised by your letter (Enclosure 1). Prior to receiving your letter, the State of Wyoming requested similar guidance, specifically with regard to the residual radioactive material at the Riverton, Wyoming UMTRA site (Enclosure 2).
The thrust of your letter centered on the flexibility of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) in allowing an active site licensee (under Title II) to assume custody and responsibility for residual radioactive material until the time of decommissioning. Although there is flexibility in VMTRCA to permit this disposal option, the following points from the enclosed egal analysis sh uld be carefully c nsidered:
O The active site licensee must be authorized by NRC, or the Agreement o
State, in their license to accept such material. Termination of the active license is not anticipated prior to active site decommissioning, although ownership of the site may be acquired by the Federal Government or the State prior to license termination. (See Enclosure 1, Item 1).
o The standards to be met for a commingled site would need to be the more stringent of the EPA standards, as well as satisfying other NRC regulations for decommissioning; e.g., closure requirements of e 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
03
! N 'o o Remedial action associated with a particular UMTRA site would not be S considered complete,.until the placement of a final stabilized cover over m the tailings. In the event that residual radioactive material from an i c UMTRA site is removed to an active Title 11 site, the commingled status
$g m of the tailings would entail closure of the site of commingling prior to Sy NRC determination that the remedial action is complete. Should multiple o r* tailings piles exist at an active site, the entire active site need not Se? be decommissioned and closed prior to requesting NRC concurrence with jQg completion. However, those tailings piles where such commingling has occurred would need to be covered and stablized in accordance with EPA standards, as discussed in the previous item. Since these areas may be licensed prior to closure of the active uranium recovery operations at 0FC :WMLU:rj : ELD :WMLU : : :
- WMLU NAME :GN Gnugnoli :DE Martin :R Fonner :MR Knapp : : :
DATE :86/05/ :86/05/ :86/05/ :86/05/ :
e WM39/WM60/GNG/86/05/28 2
such a site, these areas would need to be maintained separately with a surveillance and maintenance program specifically designed to assess the performance of the reclaimed commingled piles distinct from any contamination from the active piles.
More detail is presented in Enclosure 1; however, it appears that DOE's O# responsibility for the UMTRA waste will not cease immediately following removal to an active uranium mill tailings site.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, contact Giorgio N.
Gnugnoli (FTS 427-4788) of my staff.
Sincerely, Malcolm R. Knapp, Acting Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management t Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
- 1. NRC Legal Analysis
- 2. State of Wyoming letter dated April 10, 1986 cc: J. Turi, D0E/HQ/NE_24 R. Shaffer, WDEQ R. Marquez, DOE /AL/0CC R. Dale Smith, NRC/URF0 O :WMLU f :WMLU 2FC_:W[U'
___.:__ ,f___:E g._z_g M napp
[...::..__________:___________:..__
NAME :G i oli :DE,M4Ftih : rfneE'} ,.
3 ATE :86/06/i0 :86/06/10 :86/06/1o :86/06/15 : : :
ENCLOSURE 1 e
! NRC STAFF LEGAL ANALYSIS OF FIVE ISSUES RAISED BY DOE, APRIL 16, 1986
- 1. May a State acquire the site, in terms of ownership, to comply with Title I, O Prior to fiaai deco-issionias of the site by the iicensee? Ia seaerai Title II of UMTRCA places no restrictions on the ownership of tailings disposal sites and tailings prior to decommissioning. 10 CFR 40_21 allows any person to hold legal title to tailings. Section 83b(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires only that title to the property be transferred to the United States or the State at the State's option prior to termination of the license.
Termination of the license prior to completion of site decommissioning is not anticipated. See e.g.,, 10 CFR 150.15a(b)(1). Accordingly, there is no regulatory bar to state acquisition of a Title II site prior to final decommissioning.
- 2. If Title I tailings are disposed of in a Title II site, when is Title I remedial action complete? When does the Government accept title to the site (under Title I)? What happens to the licensee's sureties?_ These three
- questions are interrelated because under Title I ownership is to pass to the United States upon completion of the remedial action (UMTRCA Section 104(f)(1))
and the site is to be maintained under a license issued to the Department of
- O Energy (Section 104(f)(2)), thus potentially obviating the need for licensee-sureties. The statute, however, .only indirectly addresses the question of when remedial action is complete. Section 108(a)(1) states that the Secretary of Energy must comply with the applicable EPA standards in carrying out a remedial action. The EPA standards in 40 CFR 192 for Title I sites require covering the tailings to reduce radon emanation with a cover design longevity of 1000 years.
Accordingly, it could be concluded that remedial action is not complete, as a minimum, until there is a final stabilized cover over the tailings. It also follows that if Title I tailings have been deposited in a Title II site for disposal, and that Title I requires final cover for completion of remedial i action, then the whole site would need to be closed because of the comingling.
l If this is the case then the licensee's sureties for ensuring site closure could be terminated, except for any portion needed to ensure completion of a corrective action program. inaugurated to comply with Title 11 ground water orotection standards. Final groundwater protection requirements have not yet hen published for Title I sites. If, however, EPA follows the pattern it
-cablished for Title II sites, groundwater protection becomes a matter of secondary importance after final cover is in place, assuming that any i
corrective action program would have been initiated prior to final cover.
l
- 3. Would compliance with EPA Title 11 standards result in technical compliance with EPA Title I standards? Although the answer to this inquiry depends upon l
l
(
l l
1 technical comparison of the two sets of standards and not on legal analysis, we would note that a commingled disposal site would have to meet the more stringent set of standards. Further, the EPA standards are not the only standards applicable to the Title II component. For the latter the closure requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, also apply.
O 4. Is remedial action completed when the Title I tailings have been deposited at the Title II site, or when the Title II site is decommissioned? Please see our response in paragraph 2 above.
- 5. Is it permissible under Title II for owners of tailings disposal areas to charge a fee for accepting Title I materials? Is a license amendment needed to receive such material or to charge a fee? The NRC has no regulations governing the commercial relationships between its licensees and other persons. If the NRC licensee is authorized to receive and dispose of Title I tailings in his licensed tailings disposal area, he needs no authority from the NRC to charge for the service rendered. However, a license amendment would be needed to receive the Title I tailings.
O
-, --..-. - -~. -- , -,,,.-,,,n .,.,. --- , ,.., ,.. . - - -
. ~
ENCLD8b2E ~2 09 WV0 MING ED HERSCHLER THE 37 ATE oovsA8 eon
%)astment of enetsonmental Guality I.AND QUALITY DIVISION TELEPHONE So7 777-7754 CHEYENNE. WYOMING s2oo2 HERsCHLER SLOG. THIRD PLOOR 122 WEST 26TH April 10, 1986 Mr. Dale Smith, Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV P.O. Box 25325 Denver, CO 80225 RK: Riverton, Wyoming WrrRA Site
Dear Mr. Smith:
As you are aware the State of Wyoming wishes to relocate the Susquebana mill tailings under the OfIRA program. American Nuclear Corporation.(ANC) has offered its Tailings Fond No. I as a repository for this project. At this time we have a few questions concerning the cominglitig of the Title I cailings with the ANC Title II material. Our questions are outlined as follows:
- 1. Is it possible to comingle ricle I and Title II tailings in this instance?
- 2. What procedure would have to be implemented between the NRC and DOE to allow comingling?
- 3. Do you forsec any problems in executing the procedure?
l
- 4. What is the time frame involved in implementing the procedure so that work could begin?
Additionally, we would like to know the status of NRC's review of DOE's Remedial Action Plan and Environmental Assessment. Last year we rcecived ccaments from NRC which documented your concerns about these two documents. Could you advise me whether or not your concerr.s have been addressed.
Thank you for your cooperation in these matters. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call ne.
' Sincerel ,
b ChD 7 h Ro er Shaffer
' ~ f Administrator RS:LA:dlw cc: Randy Wood, Nancy Freudenthal, ~.ynn Askew
- ._