ML20246G388

Response to NRC Comments

ML20246G388
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/01/2020
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Steve Poy
Shared Package
ML20246G380	List: ML20246G388
References
Download: ML20246G388 (10)

Text

Enclosure Staff Comments on Western Nuclear Incorporated Split Rock Site Draft Completion Review Report

1) Page 1 On Page 1, it lists the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a technical reviewer.

The NRC is not a technical reviewer of the Completion Review Report (CRR) as this implies NRC participated in its development. The NRC only reviews the CRR per Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Procedure SA-900, Termination of Uranium Mill Licenses in Agreement States.

Please remove the NRC as a technical reviewer as the CRR is a Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) document.

WDEQ RESPONSE:

Change was made as requested.

2) Applicable Standards and Requirements Related to Topics Discussed in the CRR In Appendix B of NMSS Procedure SA-900, Table B-1 titled Applicable Standards and Requirements Related to Topics Discussed in the CRR Is provided. It lists the applicable standards and requirements and where they are addressed within the body of the CRR.

Please include a table of Applicable Standards/Requirements applicable to topics discussed in the CRR.

A table will facilitate the NRC staff review of items listed in NMSS Procedure SA-900 under Section V. Guidance, subsection (F)(2)(a)(ii), (iii), and (iv). This will facilitate the NRC staffs determination that the completed surface remedial actions, the completed site decommissioning actions, and the completed groundwater corrective actions were performed in accordance to the applicable standards and requirement.

WDEQ RESPONSE:

The table has been created and inserted as prescribed by Appendix B of SA-900. It should be noted that while the State complied with the request to include a table other CRRs, such as the Sherwood site do not contain such a table. Additionally, many items the State provided in the CRR are not covered in SA-900 but are determined as important by the LQD and by NRC. Strict adherence to appendices in the guidance is not recommended when reviewing CRRs as they are guidance.

3) Compliance with State of Wyoming criteria compatible with NRC criteria in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 40, Appendix A Specific comparison to applicable Wyoming requirements is not discussed.

2 Please provide a discussion of how the site meets the requirements of Wyoming Uranium Recovery Regulations, Chapter 4, Licensing Requirements for Source and Byproduct Material consistent with the example in NMSS Procedure SA-900, Appendix B (pages B-4 to B-7).

WDEQ Response: The LQD added language under the Purpose that should meet this criterion.

4) Please provide a brief description of licensees activities associated with decommissioning, tailings remediation, and groundwater cleanup, as appropriate.

The entire discussion of decommissioning is quite brief, noting that Between 1988 and 2007 the mill and mill buildings were dismantled and the tailings were reclaimed in place.

All tailings and other contaminated materials were encapsulated in the three impoundments.

Please provide a more detailed summary of the decommissioning of the Split Rock site, consistent with the guidance in NMSS Procedure SA-900. While the level of detail need not be exhaustive, it should be sufficient to allow a reader to understand the scope of activities conducted by the licensee. Note that, while the subsequent sections discuss the conclusions drawn by NRC and WDEQ regarding the acceptability of the licensees actions, the decommissioning itself should also be documented in the CRR as per NMSS Procedure SA-900 under Section V. Guidance, subsection (F)(2)(a)(iii).

WDEQ RESPONSE: The LQD added language to the History Section of the CRR.

5) Documentation that the completed surface remedial actions were performed in accordance with applicable standards and requirements.

Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection: Text in the WDEQ CRR appears to be inconsistent with the referenced conclusion in the NRC Construction Completion Report (CCR) review.

a) WDEQ indicates that the NRC reviewed the contents of the CCR and concluded that the surface water hydrology and erosion protection aspects of construction were performed in accordance with the specifications identified in the reclamation plan and 10 CFR 40, Appendix A.

From the NRC CCR: Based on NRC staff observations and review of onsite records during remedial actions, as well as assessment of the verification results presented in the 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 concludes that reclamation activities at the Split Rock site have been completed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, with respect to erosion protection.

Please review the cited NRC CCR review for surface water hydrology and erosion protection and determine if the conclusions drawn by WDEQ in the CRR are consistent with those made by the NRC staff in their CCR, with appropriate supplementation with respect to WDEQs findings. Please summarize and document

3 in the CRR as per NMSS Procedure SA-900 under Section V. Guidance, subsection (F)(2)(a)(iv).

WDEQ RESPONSE: Language was added to the section Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection.

b) The conclusion cites the 2000 NRC CCR review as the basis for concluding that the NRC determined that the site surface reclamation is complete. Pond reclamation occurred in 2007, and therefore WDEQ CRR should determine if the correct citation is the 2007 NRC review.

Please review the basis for concluding that the WNI site was determined in 2000 by NRC to have completed surface reclamation. Work was performed in 2007 and NRC determined then that all reclamation activities had been completed. Please summarize and document in the CRR as per NMSS Procedure SA-900 under Section V. Guidance, subsection (F)(2)(a)(iv).

WDEQ RESPONSE: Citation was changed in the conclusion section of the Surface Remedial Actions.

6) Documentation that the completed site decommissioning actions were performed in accordance with applicable standards and requirements. This documentation should include a discussion of the results of radiation surveys and soil sample analyses that confirm that the licensed site meets applicable standards and requirements for release.

a) Facilities: WDEQ relies on NRC review of the licensees facilities decommissioning report; the text indicates that the NRC approved the report, but the NRC report concludes that the licensee performed and documented decommissioning in accordance with license requirements.

Please review the text in the NRC staff reports and align statements in the WDEQ CRR with the NRC staff report text. While the outcome is the same in this instance since WDEQ is relying on NRC evaluations in the past rather than WDEQ performing its own independent evaluation, it would be more appropriate to quote the NRC staff findings rather than paraphrasing the NRC staff conclusions.

WDEQ RESPONSE: Language was added to the section to accommodate the request of the NRC b) Windblown/Soil Cleanup: The CRR states that NRC staff approved the licensees Completion Report. As noted above, the NRC concluded that the radiological aspects of soil cleanup were performed in accordance with WNl's approved Reclamation Plan, and that radiological cleanup and control verification data demonstrate compliance with the criteria in 10 CFR Part 40. The NRC staff determined that the Completion Report information provided reasonable assurance that the Split Rock mill site area, beyond the disposal cell (to be deeded to the Federal government), is suitable for unrestricted release.

Please review the text in the NRC staff reports and align statements in the WDEQ CRR with the NRC staff report text, as appropriate. While the outcome is the same, in this instance, since WDEQ is relying on NRC evaluations in the past rather than

4 WDEQ performing its own independent evaluation, it would be more appropriate to quote the NRC staff findings rather than paraphrasing the NRC staff conclusions.

Please summarize and document in the CRR as per NMSS Procedure SA-900 under Section V. Guidance, subsection (F)(2)(a)(ii).

WDEQ RESPONSE: Language was added to the section to accommodate the request of the NRC c) Tailings Cover/Radon Flux: Its not cited in the CRR where NRC approved the completion of the cover. As above, WDEQ cites an NRC conclusion regarding the radon flux by stating NRC acceptance of the radon flux measurements.

Please provide the documentation that the NRC concluded that the tailings cover was completed in accordance with the approved design.

Please review the text in the NRC staff reports and align statements in the WDEQ CRR with the NRC staff report text. While the outcome is the same, in this instance, since WDEQ is relying on NRC evaluations in the past rather than WDEQ performing its own independent evaluation, it would be more appropriate to quote the NRC staff findings rather than paraphrasing the NRC staff conclusions.

WDEQ RESPONSE: Language was added to the section to accommodate the request of the NRC.

7) With regard to the States site closure inspections, the cited inspection report does not conclude that the reclamation activities had been conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A and notes that 2 evaporation ponds still needed to be remediated. WDEQ needs to perform their own site closure inspection before NRC can concur on the CRR. Please revise the CRR to incorporate the results of the WDEQ Site Closeout Inspection, after WDEQ completes the inspection.

WDEQ RESPONSE: Language was added to the section Site Closure Inspection to accommodate the request of the NRC.

8) Information provided as background to the groundwater remedial actions section and Appendix B of the CRR states: Most residents of Jeffrey City derive their water supply from the town wells drilled into the Split Rock Aquifer. The Jeffrey City municipal wells presently supply approximately 379 (Lpm) (100 gpm), though pumping only occurs periodically to fill the storage tanks. These wells are located west and upgradient of the site and therefore, unaffected by site-derived contamination. Considering the that this statement is identical to a statement in NRCs Environmental Assessment (EA) dated August 2006 (ML062130387), NRC is uncertain if the statement is based on more recent information obtained by WDEQ since the NRCs 2006 EA. This updated information (e.g., current uses of groundwater in the area and the potential adverse effects on groundwater quality based on the proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users) is necessary for Wyomings evaluation and approval of the selenium alternate concentration limit (ACL) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6).

5 Please include WDEQs basis for the above-referenced statement with a supporting reference to recent source(s) of information. If not, please update the statement in the CRR with a with WDEQs conclusion and basis with recent source(s) of information.

WDEQ RESPONSE: Per SA-900 guidance the scope of the NRC in reviewing CRR are as follows NRC staff should not duplicate the States review or conduct an independent detailed technical review of the proposed license termination or of any of the specific documentation submitted by the Agreement State licensee. Rather, NRC staff should examine whether the CRR has documented the State staffs bases in summary form for its conclusions that all applicable standards and requirements have been met. The level of detailed information contained in the CRR should be similar to that contained in the sample CRRs which can be found in Appendices B and C for conventional and non-conventional uranium milling licenses, respectively.

Unless there are obvious flaws identified in the CRR related to the State approved reclamation, decommissioning and/or groundwater restoration plan, NRC staff will focus its review on whether the State has provided adequate bases in summary form to confirm that closure activities were performed according to the approved plans and specifications. In addition, if any changes or degradation of the design features have occurred since the completion of construction of disposal areas, NRC staff will determine whether the State has evaluated the changes to confirm that the site continues to meet all applicable standards and requirements.

Under unique circumstances the NRC staff may require more detailed information than is presented in the CRR, if NRC staff determines that the detailed technical information is needed to resolve (1) issues that may not have been identified under Section V.A; (2) issues that were identified under Section V.A. but were not resolved.

The LQD believes the above comment on the CRR is outside the scope of SA-900 and is not an obvious flaw that has significant health effects. Expanding past the original scope of SA-900 undermines the State ability to act as the regulatory authority under the Agreement State. By scrutinizing or criticizing decisions made by the LQD, the NRC demonstrates its lack of trust in the Agreement State to act as a Regulatory Partner. The NRC should take confidence in its IMPEP process and the determinations that are made during this process. The State is willing and eager to be a cooperative regulatory partner and hopes that as changes are made to the SA-900 process this partnership can be a focal part of any changes.

While the LQD takes exception to the comment we have provided the following information. The water supply for the Jeffrey City Water and Sewer District is supplied by two wells that are completed in the Split Rock Aquifer. One of the Wells WL-04 or Lucky MC Well #2 was installed in 2017.

Prior to this WL-01 Lucky Mc # JC101 was the primary source of drinking

6 water for the district. Previous well WL02 has been abandoned and WL03 has been disconnected. Below find a schematic of the water system.

The locations of the wells that supply water to the Jeffrey City Water and Sewer District continue to be west and upgradient of the site. Exact locations of the wells is not important to the discussion regarding the Split Rock site and because they are used for drinking water supply the exact locations are considered sensitive. In our evaluation we state that the Jeffrey City municipal wells presently supply approximately 379 (Lpm) (100 gpm), though pumping only occurs periodically to fill the storage tanks.

This statement comes from the EA and is still factual even though flow may vary from year to year based on need. However, that being said even if it varied greatly the LQD determination would remain the same.

https://sdwisr8.epa.gov/Region8DWWPUB/JSP/WaterSystemFacilities.jsp?tinws ys_is_number=717319&tinwsys_st_code=WY

9) Acknowledging the CRRs statement, The IC's prohibit human consumption of groundwater thereby preventing risk to human health., the CRR states The DOE will confirm that no drinking water wells have been established within the Long-term Care Boundary (LTCB). Based on these statements and other parts of the CRR, the NRC staff is uncertain whether the WDEQ confirmed that no drinking water wells have been established within the LTCB since the time NRC had regulatory oversight of WNIs Split Rock site. As indicated in comment 8 above, accurate characterization of current uses of groundwater in the area is necessary for Wyomings evaluation and approval of the selenium ACL in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6).

Please update the CRR with WDEQs conclusion and basis that drinking water wells are not currently established within the LTCB.

WDEQ RESPONSE: As mentioned above the State of Wyoming is a regulatory partner with the NRC and is not a licensee. Comments like Comment 9 undermine

7 the cooperative nature of the regulatory relationship especially when many of these decisions were made by the NRC prior to Wyoming becoming an Agreement State. In review of the regulatory record, the LQD was unable to determine if the NRC evaluated whether no drinking water wells had been established within the proposed LTSP when granting the first ACL. Please indicate where the NRC specifically verified that no drinking water wells occurred within the proposed LTSP.

Regardless, the LQD did verify that no drinking water wells are located within the LTSP. Below please find a map and list of wells within the LTSP.

8

Enclosure SEO PERMIT No.

SEO Permit Status APPLICANT FACNAME USES W_DEPTH P103920.0W Active CLAYTOR LONNIE J. / Western Nuclear Inc.

SWAB-29 Monitor Well 18.5 P103923.0W Active CLAYTOR LONNIE J. / Western Nuclear Inc.

SWAB-31 Monitor Well 40 P7012.0P Active HOLY CROSS CATTLE CO.

CRANDELL WELL #1 Stock Well 40 P542.0G Active LOST CREEK OIL & URANIUM CO.

LOST CREEK OIL & URANIUM CO.MILL TEST WELL

1. 1 Industrial Groundwater Well 230 P178283.0W Active MCINTOSH JOE E. AND JENNIFER WN-22 Stock Well 260 P11126.0P Active USDI - BLM VI WELL #121 Stock Well 70 P101438.0W Active Western Nuclear Inc.

WN-42A Monitor Well 120 P102522.0W Active Western Nuclear Inc.

SWAB-1 Monitor Well 27.5 P102523.0W Active Western Nuclear Inc.

SWAB-2 Monitor Well 27.75 P102525.0W Active Western Nuclear Inc.

SWAB-4 Monitor Well 18.3 P102626.0W Active Western Nuclear Inc.

SWAB-12 Monitor Well 20.5 P197148.0W Active WESTERN NUCLEAR INC.

WNI-24 Stock Well 282 P39311.0W Active WESTERN NUCLEAR INC.

WN 3 HG Monitor Well 240 P39315.0W Active WESTERN NUCLEAR INC.

WN 7 HB Miscellaneous Well 384 P56233.0W Active WESTERN NUCLEAR INC.

WNI-24 Monitor Well 282 P56235.0W Active WESTERN NUCLEAR INC.

WNI-21 Monitor Well 322 P105203.0W Active Western Nuclear Inc. / CLAYTOR LONNIE J.

SWAB-32 Monitor Well 34 P111256.0W Active WESTERN NUCLEAR, INC.

SWAB-37 Monitor Well 24.5 P105210.0W Active Wyo State Board of Land Commissioners / Western Nuclear Inc.

WN-41B Monitor Well 115

Enclosure

10) Concerning the CRRs analysis of the selenium ACL, the NRC is uncertain if WDEQs consideration of the list of factors in Criterion 5B(6) was exhaustive. The NRC staff agrees that because of the long regulatory history of ACLs with this site, much of the needed analysis has been completed previously However, as indicated in comments 8 and 9, some of these factors require current information that NRC staff was not able find in the CRR. Please clearly identify each factor listed in Criterion 5B(6) that requires updated information since NRCs previous ACL analyses, and provide the appropriate updated information.

WDEQ RESPONSE: As stated above the LQD believes this is outside of the scope of SA-900. As stated in the SDD for the Selenium evaluation the only factors that the LQD considered needing updating were the following a) The quantity of groundwater, and surface water, available for dilution of selenium contaminated groundwater prior to arrival at the POE, and b) The cumulative impacts to human health, wildlife, and the environment of the ACL at the POE, the persistence and permanence of the adverse effects of selenium at the site and the POE.

As the LQD is not a licensee and rather a regulatory partner please indicate specifically where the LQDs decision on the assessment of the selenium ACL needs additional or updated information.

11) Acknowledging the prior NRC evaluations, WDEQ should provide its evaluation and basis for concluding that the property rights sufficient to ensure the long-term isolation of the mill-tailings, consistent with the established LTCB, have or will be secured by the licensee for transfer to the custodial agency, as appropriate.

WDEQ RESPONSE: In response to the Long Term Care Boundary the LQD makes the following statement in the CRR Therefore, the controls on access to and use of groundwater to control potential future human and livestock or wildlife exposure via the drinking water pathway within this expanded LTCB are identical to those already reviewed by the NRC under WNI previous submittals and are found to be acceptable to the WDEQ for the long-term isolation of the material. Additionally, for institutional controls the LQD added the following statement The LQD agrees that the use of institutional controls as discussed above will ensure the long-term isolation of the Split Rock Site. SA-900 guidance does not address this topic and as such if the NRC is looking for further information than what is provided guidance would be needed.